Datasets:
jjz5463
/
hard-negatives

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
anchor
stringlengths
100
28k
negative
stringlengths
105
28k
Logic'd. On a date, they should be approaching it as equals. He's not hosting a party and has to provide the entertainment. She has as much responsibility to engage in the date as he does... it's part of what is implicitly agreed upon by going on the date. If she's not interested in trying to engage him too, then she's basically just advertising that she only agreed to go out with him to get a free meal.
And do you think a restaurant really has the time and manpower to go dictating prices over the phone during a rush to someone who doesn't even know whether they're going to eat there? So... do that. Call them during a rush and have them dictate prices to you. It'll be motivation.
Well, God falls into a different category of thing than the universe. Only if you think all questions of existence are answered in the same way would you insist upon physical standards of evidence for a non-physical being. You might ask for evidence of his actions within the universe, but those aren't exactly predictable, which is one of the requirements for a scientific investigation.
"If I owe <PERSON> ten dollars and God forgives me, that doesn't pay <PERSON>." <PERSON> That basically sums up my main problem with substitutionary atonement. It arrogates an authority that can only belong to victims. God can't be a victim, therefore he has no authority to forgive anybody for shit they did to other people. Of course, the whole idea that God has to be pacified by a blood sacrifice is Stone Age barabarism anyway.
Times and hours paid cannot shift between pay periods. Overtime is even stricter, as it generally goes based on *that week*. So if I am late one week, but work my full 40 hours the next they would *have* to pay me for overtime on any "makeup" time because there is no such thing as "makeup" time. They are also free to fire you for being late.
Clubs are generally 21+ in the US as they serve alcohol. If they do allow younger in them it is an 18+. There are kids with fake IDs who do sneak in, but not 14 year olds. But if you do have good cause to believe they are of age then you are not guilty of statutory rape, and they are guilty of federal crimes in using a fake ID.
Mine was stolen last year, actually. It sucked, because I used that to get to work, and I had to start walking that five miles (each way) every day. There was a guy just driving around with the apartment complex logo on the side of his truck, cutting locks and taking bikes, and not a single apartment worker saw fit to do anything about it.
In my jurisdiction, we can use reasonable force to hold you, including handcuffing if necessary. Almost never happens (only three times in ten years for me, personally). Here's a copy and paste from one of my other replies when someone said they would just leave: &gt;Some do. The first step, since we've already called the police, is to call again while following at a safe distance so we can give a direction of travel. The majority get picked up by a cop before they get out of sight. &gt;If they do get away, any chance of a cop giving them a break (a notice of trespass instead of a criminal charge) is gone. Once they get stopped for another theft (most likely) or any other crime (trespassing, moving violation, driving license suspended, etc.), they get hit for every possible charge. &gt;Most thieves here know how it goes and are willing to stay with us, rather than risk a much heavier day in court later.
nope. i was born in the 1960s my family was Eastern Europe during the decimation of Native Americans and Civil War. my country of origin had nothing to do with either of those things because they didn't have their historical shit together good enough to establish a foothold in the US even if they did - i hadn't been born so i was not part of the problem my family WAS in the US during WW2. but, there was no significant Asian population of the city in which they lived. none of my relatives worked in an internment camp because, AFAIK, there were none in the area and even if they had - i wasn't born yet. nobody asked me my opinion. on top of all that ... the people who suffered from American war against Native Americans and slavery are all dead yes, your plight in the world may very well be as a result of what was done to your ancestors. but i had nothing to do with it. i'm not sure what's been done to recompense the interred Japanese from WW2. you can look it up as well as i can but the fact remains: i'll gladly pay for things *I* have done wrong. i will not make any atonement for things my ancestors may have done
why would anyone want to "attack" someone's views - if those views do nothing to you? why not respect people's beliefs? I don't believe in an afterlife or a religion - but I'm not barging into someone's church funeral and being an ass. if a friend or relative has final wishes that include religion or ceremony or anything else - I will respect them - because it's not for me to say or judge. I don't understand why anyone would want to act without respect
Wait a minute, no, this is not the right way to compare. The pill /u/Salanmander is talking about changes your opinion to match external expectation. You need to compare it to your pill, which changes your identity to match your body. Not to the opposite pill, which would change your body to match your identity. So you say you won't take the pill if you're ok with your controversial opinion, that is the same thing as not taking your pill because you are ok with your own internal gender identity. In both cases, the problem is that what is external to your mind doesn't match what's inside. In both cases, the problem one wants to solve is what is external, not who they are inside. You're taking an easy shortcut by putting mind and body in the same "themselves" bag and assuming the gender dysphoria person's problem is all inside this bag, but it's just not the case, but also how they are perceived by other people, which also the problem of having a controversial opinion. &amp;#x200B; If you're not willing to change your opinion because it is controversial, then you can't expect transgender people to change how they perceive themselves because it doesn't match the body they have been assigned.
I want all Christian millionaires and billionaires to distribute their health because money is no good in heaven. I don't care if you preach as long as you are being coherent with the belief that heaven is the final purpose and you help people have better lives. But mostly, I was question why this isn't the case, since you do believe what you believe. What I want is for you to make sense. The point is not that there is no God and we all suffer for nothing. The point is that very likely there isn't a God and that by itself doesn't mean we have to suffer. We can all live much more harmoniously than we do now. Suffering is not a necessity. You can't magically cure diseases and whatnot, but you can make the world equal, safer and comfortable for everyone. Even if you don't think we can, God hasn't showed us he can either. After all he has the power to create perfection, yet unperfect is all you see.
Clothes have never made a man, remember that and remind yourself of that when you go clothing shopping. You can look 10x better than you do just by visiting a thrift shop and getting some nice articles tailored. If you want to raise your confidence try working out, lifting weights and getting into a strong healthy life style/mind set. Its a better financial investment because it deals directly with your health/longevity/overall attractiveness. You will grow alot in the next few years so whatever you buy will be either out grown or require a tailor to adjust them to however you change.
&gt;I believe you can control your actions, but you cannot control what your brain deems true or false. There are different conclusion mechanisms in the brain and plenty of room for error. I'm not an expert here, somebody please jump in with the big science words. Your animal instincts/emotions/subconscious is a different mechanism than your logic/conscious as well as your body identification. All of those are in your brain, are different parts of your brain and can independently compete to determine the truth of a thing. Example, you may feel there is a monster in the closet but then use your logic to conclude that monsters are not real. Your feelings may not agree with your logic but can be controlled and told to stfu. I wouldn't say you *cannot control* your animal instincts because some can be tamed or retrained. Things like fear of closet monsters, flying or heights can be overcome. But things like self identification don't seem to have the capacity for retraining. We have yet to see any science behind effectively changing peoples [body identities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder) or their sexuality. Perhaps instead we say that selfcontrol varies in people and some people will struggle to master their animal instincts while others do not struggle. When it comes to belief, that is just taking a position on something. It seems that people have evolved a fear of the dark and commonly respond to the stimulus of a dark closet with fear of creatures lurking there. But that is independent of an actual creature being there. So their instincts take the position that dark is bad because dangerous creatures live in dark spots. If you map all the plausible outcomes you see potential for errors in judgement or poor logic. A child may not have the ability to quiet their instincts and may be seemingly incapable of logically concluding there is no monster. An adult may have control over their instincts and yet believe in closet monsters through faulty logic and conclude there are monsters. Or perhaps a person suffering from body identity disorder wants to lose an arm and purposely sticks it in the closet to check for monsters even thought they don't believe there is a monster there. Or perhaps an adult has used their logic so many times to quiet their instincts that the dark closet provokes no response. All of these are reasonable results which merely result in the competing understanding mechanisms of the brain. &gt;Is belief a choice? If not. why be punished for disbelief? Over time many different ways to control people have been tested and developed. Ideas like liberty have evolved and are currently valued for how they balance letting people decide how to live their lives with reducing that impact to the others around them. Additionally, we are improving the logical conclusions of humanity on a regular basis. The UN human rights charter is only 70+/- years old. In the US if you let your child die of a treatable disease because you believe God will save them you are going to jail. But if you raise your child to believe science is all wrong and storybooks are the way to go you will see no jail time. In some respects we are still experimenting the best way forward.
&gt;Do they? Do they ever see him, or an angel, prior to the apple incident? Yes, they see him in genesis 2 multiple times and <PERSON> mentions a time <PERSON> told her about not eating the fruit. &gt;This seems way off topic. The point was to argue that the "original sin" interpretation wasn't the original interpretation as all, hence its flaws not being noticed by the authors. &gt;You keep assuming that <PERSON> and <PERSON> had the capacity to learn everything about good and evil on their own. Without that assumption, the "important tree" argument falls apart. This is just an ad hoc hypothesis now. How can you assume that <PERSON>/eve only had enough knowledge to know eating from the tree was wrong and that people could lie to them, but not enough to know that being naked was wrong? &gt;Is this established in the story? I'd argue the opposite is, the fact that god uses a threat of death against <PERSON> before they ate from the tree suggests that they weren't immortal at all. Hence, why it would make sense for the tree of life to exist. What wouldn't make sense is why the tree of knowledge would exist if they already had some knowledge of good and evil. &gt;He's got infinite magic powers, why not do or undo anything at any point? That seems like an irrelevant tangent. In this fable, they already had zero-or-more knowledge, and then they get some amount of additional knowledge from an apple. That's all you can read in the words without a lot of assumptions. It actually isn't. If god had the capacity to give and take away knowledge of good/evil, then his actions at the end of genesis 3 make no sense, because he could simply just revert the knowledge that <PERSON>/eve got when they ate the fruit and avoid this problem entirely. Instead he has to warn them not to eat from the tree and kick them out to ensure they don't become immortal. This suggests that adam/eve don't have knowledge of good and evil because if god could control <PERSON> and eves knowledge like that, he would have done so. There are a lot of other points in the bible where god it would have made sense for <PERSON> to alter human's knowledge of good and evil had he actually had that power, such as the end of the <PERSON> story. &gt; If the original storytellers were unambiguously claiming that A&amp;E knew absolutely nothing about evil, THEN the problem you pointed out is obvious, and they must have been absolutely shitty thinkers. So if they're shitty thinkers, why assume all of these subtle implications that you've pointed out must be treated as they are carefully worded and fully intentional? Because, that wasn't the original interpretation of the story. The serpent being the savior of humans from an aborted god one was, and the problems I mention don't exist in that interpretation.
&gt;No. I don't know what more to tell you than to use the sources I linked you to. You yourself said that &gt;we still do not know of the specific processes that lead to consciousness. among other instances where you said "we don't know". &gt;Is there any compelling reason to believe in the unicorn? You have not provided nor linked to any compelling reason to believe that something for which we have no examples exists. &gt;I'm saying that the arguments, in addition to not being invalidated by neuroscience, are compelling, that is the claim you must address if you want to disagree. Again, at the most very basic you must show that it is possible for such a thing to even be a thing that can exist in reality. Your division between "natural" and "physical" is a false one, as nothing has ever been shown to exist that is not in the physical world.
To underline the point about money made by /u/caffarelli, the Vatican is making a heavy investment in digitization. The costs are staggering: &gt;The entire undertaking is expected to take at least 15 years and cost more than $63 million dollars [Source article](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/vatican-library-digitizes-ancient-manuscripts-shares-free-charge/). Here's another [article on the process](http://mashable.com/2014/04/20/vatican-digitize-documents/). It says that: &gt;Digitizing the Vatican's 40 million pages of library archives will take 50 experts, five scanners and many, many years before the process comes to a close. &gt;The Vatican Library was founded in 1451 and has around 82,000 manuscripts... &gt;There's no set timeframe for how long the process will last. If it takes four years for every 3,000 manuscripts, the the entire library may not be online for over 109 years. The documents are expected to consume 43 quadrillion bytes of storage space While the costs are incredible, thankfully the results are too. [You can see a selection of them here](http://digital.vatlib.it).
Yep. Historically, many Jewish communities avoided saying names of non-Jewish prophets. There's a paper [here](http://huc.edu/faculty/faculty/benor/Lexical%20Othering%20Judezmo%20Misgav%20Yerushalayim.pdf) which discusses word use in *Judezmo*/Ladino/Judeo-Spanish, with a section about how religious figures are discussed: &gt;In Judaism, a biblical injunction commands: “Make no mention of the name of other gods; do not let it be heard from your mouth” (Exodus 23:13). This prohibition was created with pagan gods in mind, but it still has repercussions in monotheistic societies. Although the actual names of non-Jewish religious figures are sometimes used in Jewish languages, Jews often prefer circumlocutions. Thus, in addition to (el) <PERSON>, Judezmo speakers refer to <PERSON> as el peygamber ‘the prophet’ (of Persian origin, through Turkish); and, instead of using Hebrew-origin <PERSON>, Greek-origin <PERSON> or French-origin <PERSON> for <PERSON>, they may refer to him as <PERSON> ‘the nailed one’ or otó aísh ‘that man’ (from Hebrew). Semantically close to otó aísh is Hispanic-origin il esti ‘that one,’ which was used when it was clear from the context that the reference was to <PERSON>. Accordingly, in addition to her Hebrew name, <PERSON>, the mother of <PERSON> was also called la madri di esti ‘that one’s mother.’ Turkish Jews also refer to <PERSON> as <PERSON>, literally ‘Mother,’ an adaptation of the Turkish appellation of respect added to the names of women saints (e.g., <PERSON> ‘Mother Mary’); but this use is probably very new in Judezmo, perhaps reflecting greater influences of Muslim culture on contemporary Turkish Jewry. &gt;Aside from the terms for religious leaders, we see indirectness in the terms for ‘conversion to Islam’: aboltarse (literally, ‘to turn’) and ‘cruficix’: la de kwatro (puntas) (literally, ‘the one of four points’). The use of the latter expression is extended to denote people who ‘cross themselves’; thus one can say of a Christian, “Es de las kwatro puntas” (He/she is of the four points). Other examples of indirectness can be found among the words discussed in the sections on Metonymy (4.2) and Humor (4.4) and in the Hebrew Words section (5.3). &gt;Why do Jews often use indirectness, or euphemism, when discussing nonJews and their symbols? Why do they not limit themselves to the existing Judezmo variants of the same words the non-Jews use, such as <PERSON>, Hristós ‘Christ,’ kroche ‘crucifix’ (from Italian croce), or <PERSON>? In addition to the prohibition mentioned above, an important reason is secrecy. To minimize the possibility that non-Jews would realize they were being discussed, Jews could use a term like otó aísh or la de kwatro puntas and feel reasonably sure that non-Jews would not understand them. (This does not apply to a word like el peygamber, which, while enabling the Jews to avoid saying the prophet’s name, is readily understood by the Turks as a non-disrespectful reference to <PERSON>.) Another reason is the attempt to maintain distance: by avoiding the terms that Christians and Muslims use for their saints and symbols, Jews emphasize their difference. Another related phenomenon takes place in Yiddish. The traditional Yiddish way of referring to "<PERSON>" is "Yoshke", which roughly means "little joshie". In addition to being somewhat pejorative, it also tacitly avoids referencing <PERSON> in the way his believers do. It also sometimes includes an epithet to implicitly deny his divine birth--see [here](http://www.dovidkatz.net/dovid/PDFLinguistics/2012_Jesus_in_Yiddish.pdf), but that's not quite your question. In older Jewish texts, this is common too. Rabbi <PERSON> is usually cited as "acher" in the Talmud, which means "other". He apostatized, so using his name is avoided. Another example is a messianic claimant named "<PERSON>". His supporters referred to him as "bar <PERSON>", which means "son of a star", an endorsement (which eventually became the form of his name that's commonly used). But after his revolt failed, he was called "bar koziba", which means "son of lies". A more common construction with historical figures is to suffix names with *yemakh shemo* or *yemakh shemo ve-zikhro*, meaning "may his name be obliterated" or "may his name and memory be obliterated", respectively. This is commonly used for figures whose name would otherwise be avoided, but who have no common euphemism. The classic religious ones are <PERSON> and <PERSON> (I don't know of any non-religious references to the former, and the latter depends on what parts of <PERSON> are historical. But they're relevant since bad people are generally associated with <PERSON>), but the most common people who get that suffix are Nazis, especially <PERSON>. It can also be used for wider groups, entire nationalities, etc. While it isn't actually avoiding use of a name, it is a reference to the preference of destruction of names. See [here](http://www.jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/612). A broader example is using the opposite of something as a euphemism. The one that I first thought of when seeing your question is the phrasing "curse the enemies of Israel" for "curse Israel" or "bless God" for "curse God". Negative references to positive things are replaced with the opposite. That's a wider trend in ancient Jewish texts, too. The Talmud's word for "blind person" is *segi nahara*, which literally means "abundant light".
I've only been there once- and it was for a day. We had barely enough time to do anything (we also took the subway in from Greenbelt) except walk around Downtown and see stuff. We also had lunch at Carmine's, which is an Italian restaurant right downtown. It's really good.
I work for a hotel in NJ- we are an international hotel chain, but are a franchise. My bosses sent a very vague email, asking us to download an app called Lua with no other information about it. It's apparently a text messaging app. There's no information about the app's permissions, what they want to use it for, etc. Also, my hotel has around 150 employees, and there's no information about who will have our cell phone numbers (ie, will they be visible to everyone with this app/is communication monitored). They have a training session for this app scheduled TBD, but within the next few weeks, and they want the app downloaded prior to the meeting. The hotel does not provide us with cell phones, nor give us an allowance for them. I am very uncomfortable being asked to download an app on my personal phone that I know nothing about for no reason specified. Has anyone else dealt with this? Does anyone know what this app is? For now, I simply haven't downloaded the app nor have I answered the email or said anything to anyone. I'm planning on not doing so until someone asks me about it. I don't feel comfortable approaching my boss about this, due to other similar requests in the past ('mandatory' money requests for employees baby shower gifts, etc).
The idea isn't that children should constantly be using either algorithm, it's that they should learn the algorithms to demystify the math they're doing so they treat a calculator as a time-saving tool instead of a magic box that does things they don't understand. Having some idea of what the calculator is doing when you hit a given button is going to make math more satisfying for students who might be interested in math.
If there's such a thing that you can afford to go on leave for a month, but you can not be cut off because your productivity overshoots the target enough that you can take a month of leave, but nobody can be laid off because the productivity will go under target since people are integers, that was a point of a delta.
Luckily I have a nice relationship with my wife. She buys her shit. I buy my shit. We've been together 12 years. Never any fights because we both understand each other. When her mom passed away and left a decent owned condo worth a decent amount of money, I saw her and her brother. They never fought about who gets how much money. They both worked to make it home early fair and how their mom wanted it. And it worked. I'm not worried about us splitting up and her going after my money or whatever because she honestly isn't this type of person. I'm not even saying that in a way of, "We've known each other for a month and got married. I totally know her. She's cool. We don't need a prenuptial agreement!" but I've known her for almost half of my life, now. She doesn't get mad when I spend $60 on a brand new game or $20 on Overwatch loot boxes because I want to support them. I don't mind when she spends $100 getting nice clothes and telling her she can get cheaper ones at a discount store. As long as we have enough to pay our bills, everything is fine. If I wanted to spend something like $300 on something, I would ask her and she would do the same as well. Then it's only a matter of deciding whether or not we have enough for bills and other planned stuff. Not everyone should do what you do. Not everyone should do what I do, as well. Every relationship is complex and different and you can't really judge a relationship by a single reddit comment and talk about how bad it is.
My father (55m) had some trouble with the law a few months ago and told my brother (26m) and me (21m) that he needed someone to hold onto his firearms for him. He said if he was in possession of them, he'd have to surrender them to the court or something so he wanted us to take them. My brother agreed and has had then for about a year now. My brother is getting married this weekend and told our dad he won't keep the firearms because he's moving and his wife doesn't want them around. So my dad came to ask me. It's two rifles, a shotgun, and three handguns. We live in California but he's MOVING out of state soon. I'd still have them when he moves. I have several reasons I don't want to take them: they're still licensed under his name, supposedly the courts don't want him to have them, I live in two different places on opposite sides of my county and I don't want any of the people I live having them around when I'm not there, and I just don't want his guns around. Is this even legal? Am I being unreasonable? I already have a very strained relationshipwith my dad and I don't want to make things worse.
&gt;You can't even be morally superior. Before we go any further into the discussion, [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww) is where my views on morality come from. I don't accept this premise, and I don't believe to say otherwise is fallacious. Your arguments seem to entirely hinge on this. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find a concise write-up on <PERSON> talk on this (though you can read his book if you were so inclined, the name of which escapes me at the moment). Still, the talk is certainly interesting, and worth watching. Can we still have this discussion if I reject the premise that morality can't be inferior or superior, only different?
I will do my best to provide some sources, but it's difficult on such a broad topic. If only because these are issues that are more about nuance these days, as the foundations of quantitative microeconomics (really a branch that depends on utilizing rational choice as the rationale for their models) are well-established. To begin with, it's absolutely right that the sort of rationality used in economics provides no capacity to determine an actor's intentions. [<PERSON> and <PERSON> (1986)](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352759) indicate how alternative presentations of decisions can display violations of what is expected from rational choice. Originally the idea of rational choice was not to present an 'accurate' human, but a stylized one just to highlight a particular type of action. <PERSON> and <PERSON> suggest that deviations from rational choice are fundamental, and that a more refined decision theory is necessary. And there is a work in behavioral economics, experimental economics, institutional/political economics, etc. on trying to build better theories for addressing the limitations of current rational choice models and the possibility of either improving rational choice or building better decision models. I think something like [<PERSON> speech to the American Political Science Association](http://apsanet3b.inetu.net/media/PDFs/PresidentialAddresses/1997AddrOSTROM.pdf) represents the sort of impact that fields like political science and sociology have had in changing the way that economics views rational choice. But rational choice still has a lot of analytical value. What's most important is that it rests on a few simple and fundamental principles for explaining not the content of our intentions, but the rules by which we compare and judge between alternatives. Combined with the theory of the market, the basic rules expressed in rational choice models allows economists to isolate particular relationships. Their use is heavily limited, but by assuming that even though all our intentions vary, at the very least we are sharing all this information in the form of prices, quantities, etc. and if we all have these basic outlines of simple preferences between alternatives, maybe there is some ability to look at some patterns in past data. But this should not be extended into prediction, as you rightly say. The real point is that rational choice is a useful abstraction, even though it's widely understood to misrepresent real behavior. A lot of people work in economics to improve decision models, but in the meantime rational choice is a powerful tool. One of the hardest bits of building models for patterns of behavior is finding an engine of action. Rational choice works on the engine that a choice must be made, and therefore compare them and choose the better one. Of course there are deviations from this in the real world, but this is also a real situation that we know of and that we are familiar with—especially in terms of our relationships with the marketplace.
My advice: Seek assistance from an academic guidance counselor regarding your GPA and current situation, even if this risks you being transferred. Take less classes. Start slow then increase your workload. If neither of these work, abandon ship, get a stress free job and work on yourself for awhile. Even if this takes multiple years, it will give you time to realize what you want and what is realistic for you. You can always go back. I dropped out after 2 years and I’m making 85k without a degree. I Never thought that would happen. I felt stress and shame that I’m sure you are currently feeling. I didn’t even show up for class which was essentially a free “A” just for attending. Once I took a step back and stopped forcing what I thought I was supposed to do, I felt a peace that I hadn’t felt in years. There was a lyric from a song that still goes over in my head when I think back to this time in my life: “And it’s so nice sitting very still without those old shoes I could never fill.”
I think you new to do some soul searching. Explore, spend time alone, spend time with strangers, travel, take up new hobbies or volunteer. After this, Make a list of your positive traits and what you find you like or value. If you don't have a job, get one even if it's not a "career" and work hard at it to make you feel confident. Plus it takes time away from dwelling on your problems and puts your energy into something else other than anxiety. Think about your "virgin" situation. Do you want to have sex for yourself or because you think it's what you NEED to do (just like you NEED to get a job out of college)? If it's the former, go right ahead and pursue that but know it's not going to solve any problems. Other than that, someone once told me to not worry about what you're going to do to create happiness for the rest of your life but rather focus on what makes you happy in your current life. (I probably and wording this wrong) Good luck I've been there and overcome some of the problems that you've mentioned but still right there with you on others.
A long time ago, a girl I worked with did that once. She got all dolled up to ask me out. I turned her down but spent a good amount of time explaining why I turned her down and gave her plenty of compliments. I still felt bad because I know how much courage it took for her to do something like that.
I worked at an alarm company a few years back. I never had anything traumatic like that but I did have someone fishing for houses nearby. They were pretending to be the homeowner and asking for me to turn off the alarm system for them. It was my first week on the phones and I was the only person in my department (manager was gone for the day). I didn't know what to do so I hung up on him.
It is a tough situation, my friend. It takes some real balls to come forward and look for help with little help from your family. I would advise you to 1) Don't kill yourself! You can't help them, yourself, or anybody really being dead. And you sound to me like someone that wants to at least improve the life of those close to him. 2) Don't neglect your studies. They may not be the most important thing in your life, but they are an important gateway for your future. 3) As others have said, has she seen a doctor? If not, she must. If she doesn't want to, or it's too unaffordable, ask a friend or colleague. 4) If possible, talk with your family. They don't seem to be the listening kind, and you know them better than any of us here, but a conversation can change things for the better. There's not much I can say, but I wish you the best for you and your family.
I am not going to live your life for you, and I am not going to spoon feed you. If you are truly invested in the subject, then there are scores of philosophers who have argued all sides of the issue. Check them out and make up your own mind. If life works better for you believing that God is imaginary (or malevolent, you pick), then good for you. I don't particularly care. It is odd, however, that others' belief in this "imaginary" being should be so important to you. After all, if what you are ceases to exist in a handful of years, why should *anything* matter?
I have heard a response to this. The theory is that God used a "[white hole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole)" to create the universe. Simply put, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime where light and mass can escape, but not enter. Theoretically they are similar to black holes in that they would cause time dilation. Let's say that the universe did spawn from an enormous white hole. So mass and light are being ejected, and as they are, they are now aging at different rates than any matter yet to be ejected due to time dilation. Meaning, the first matter to leave would be the oldest, and the most recent matter would be the youngest. Also, this would give light from stars billions of light-years away plenty of time to reach earth, if our solar system was the last matter to be ejected from the white hole. I'm sure this theory is full of holes (so to speak), but I found it interesting.
Of course you could just be unique! Ostensibly, this is the "story" that science has given us. Empirical observations clearly show beyond a doubt that our population is much smaller than what the laws of physics can support. The potential future population is extremely divergent. If the limit is energy consumption of our brains, then our star could support 2 x 10^25 humans (yes, I did use numbers). So in naive sense the chances of being in a world like this were something like 1 in a quadrillion. But even if you lived in an advanced society like that, you could ask the same question regarding the entire galaxy. So it's debatable if that's meaningful of an observation. I think it is, and I think the Doomsday hypothesis normally has a fatal flaw. That fatal flaw is that even if 1 race out of 1,000,000 go on to be space faring, their population would dwarf the population of ALL the failed races. So that nagging question of why you and I were personally born into such a small society on the footsteps of greatness still remains. There is a more compelling theory, which is that we live in a simulation undertaken by an advanced civilization. This eliminates a lot of the problems of statistical unlikeliness. I still wonder why an advanced civilization would make new people who don't understand their place in the universe, but even if they only made 1 for every 3 people who *do* understand their place in the universe, it's not unlikely for us to be born this way.
I'm not mad that it classified me as a "big government statist," although the wording is a bit odd. Who decides what is big? And why bother with the word statist, isn't "statist" just another word for "normal"? The main problem is the way it's scored and calibrated. 0% to 100% on "economic freedom." To get a higher (read: better) score, one must adopt policies straight out of the TEA Party playbook. Privatize Social Security and slash the government by 50%? Well that makes you a "centrist." Nah, we're not trying to shift the Overton Window, where would you get that idea? Who did they poll to calibrate this?
Healthcare does have to be rationed, but it doesn't have to be rationed by dividing the "worthy" from the "unworthy." It's rationed first of all by randomness: not everyone becomes chronically ill or needs extremely expensive healthcare in the first place, and those that do we can most certainly afford to care for. Any industrialized society can. You are creating a straw man argument when you imply that only an "unlimited" health care system could possibly treat everyone who needs treatment. Secondly, when it comes to making choices among those unlucky few who actually need care, when practical choices have to be made, they are made according to the well-established medical principle of [triage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage), i.e., prioritize care according to medical need, with life-threatening emergencies at the top of the list. Not according to some arrogant moral calculus that claims the right to decide which lives are worth saving.
I'm not going to interrupt someone concentrating on something to bother them with questions about it.. no. If the question is relevant to me it's still relevant to me when I won't have to interrupt someone to find out the answer. If I want to talk about <PERSON> with someone I will pick a time when they aren't currently reading <PERSON>. Isn't this just basic courtesy? edit: &gt;and the person is most likely able to give a high quality response YES.. exactly why I don't ask them when they are in the middle of something.. they are concentrating on that something, this is the exact time when you won't get a high quality response.
&gt;This analogy doesn't explain why intention doesn't matter. I'm not sure how you are missing it but it definitely does. Are you only reading half of it? Cause you only quoted half of it.. &gt;I disgaree and I'd like to hear the argument behind this. You disagree? What stance do you have to disagree with this? This is basic morality I think. If you perform an action, and that action has unintended consequences that you did not want to happen, but you were aware *could* happen... you are fully responsible if those unintended consequences occur. If one of those things occurs and you shoot a guy 2 hills over. You are responsible for that. I can't imagine any scenario where you can disagree and maintain some morality with the concept "You are responsible for intended and unintended consequences of your actions" You are basically saying "Opps I didn't *mean* for that to happen... guess I can kill someone else to fix my problem!"
Profit should not be the primary goal. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself. The happiness and quality of life for citizens should be the primary goal. Prosperity is a means to achieve that, but the pursuit of it cannot ignore the citizens along the way. It’s an ongoing process.
They were fallible humans, but they were also some of the most learned sages in history. If they all agreed on what should be canonized and what shouldn’t be, it would be hard for me to argue with them. They were imbued with the authority to make rulings like this.
The first lady IS a job, and has been since at least <PERSON> (who served under both <PERSON> and <PERSON>). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolley_Madison#In_Washington_1801-1817 "<PERSON> worked with the architect <PERSON> to furnish the White House, the first official residence built for the president of the United States. In addition, as <PERSON> was a widower, she sometimes served as his First Lady for official ceremonial functions." http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=4 At those receptions and dinners which the widowed President [Jefferson] felt necessitated a female co-host, he asked <PERSON> to aide him. While she was not a presidential wife or in any way given an official designation, her exposure to the political and diplomatic figures who were guests of the President, as well as to the general public who came to meet him, provided her with a lengthy experience as a White House hostess. Notably, she also took a large public role in the fundraising effort that supported the exploration of the Louisiana Territory by explorers <PERSON> and <PERSON>. These eight years of fore-knowledge and opportunity to consciously create her own public persona were the crucial factor that enabled her to shape what was only a marital relationship to the President into a genuine public role that was soon called "Presidentress" by some chroniclers. She wasn't the first First Lady, but she was probably the one who made it into a political and powerful position at a time when women pretty much had zero political power. And for good measure: Here's <PERSON>'s account of the burning of Washington: http://www.nationalcenter.org/WashingtonBurning1814.html Here's a historical essay on it: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_classroom/classroom_documents-1812.html It's up to each first lady to determine what she wants to do with the position (some are more hands on than others), but being first lady IS their job.
In 1800, Mexico’s per capita GDP (in 1950s US dollars) was $73. This was 2/5ths that of the US. By 1830, Mexico’s per capita GDP had shrunk ($56 by 1845, $49 in 1860). By 1860, Mexico’s GDP per capita was 14% of that in the USA. http://hoohila.stanford.edu/Commercializing%20Innovation/Files/A-Assessing%20the%20Obstacles%20to%20Industrialisation%20The%20Mexican%20Economy,%201830-1940.pdf By 1830, Mexico’s population was (finally) growing. The demographic catastrophe caused by epidemic diseases coming from the Columbian exchange seems to have bottomed out around 1650 at a population of perhaps 4m. (All Mexican population statistics before the late 19th century are dubious estimates, and highly disputed.) Some previously epidemic diseases seem to have become endemic by 1650 in Mexican Indigenous populations. Endemic diseases are still deadly, but they tend to kill children (the adults being survivors who have acquired immunity) and are less devastating to population levels than recurring epidemics. Mexico became characterized by high birth rates (over 8 children per woman) and low life expectancy (circa 16 years average) due to very high child mortality. Still, the demographic catastrophe reversed, and the Mexican population began to slowly grow, reaching perhaps 5m by 1800. In the 1790s the Spanish government instituted a policy to try to inoculate the entire population of its American and Philippine territories against smallpox. Perhaps due to this initiative, the population of Mexico began to grow faster after 1800. The population is estimated to have grown to 8m by 1855. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm The population of Mexico was now growing faster than the economy, so the GDP per capita was declining. By 1830, the industrial revolution was producing growth in the European and the US economies, but it had not reached Mexico. The conditions conducive to industrial growth are said to be; the availability of low-cost transport, a relatively even distribution of income, highly productive agricultural sectors, low entry costs for early manufacturers, the development of legal institutions designed to protect property rights and facilitate commerce. None of these conditions existed in Mexico in 1830, with the lack of any transport systems which could facilitate the growth of a national economy being perhaps the greatest barrier. If we estimate that the population in 1830 in Mexico might have been about 6.5m, and the GDP per capita might have been about $65. This would compare to a US population (in the 24 States which existed at the time) of 13m (from the 1830 census) and a GDP per capita of $325 (estimated from the previous source claim that Mexican GDP per capita was 14% that of the US in 1860, and using 20% on the estimated $65 Mexican GDP per capita) (all in 1950s US dollars). So, the US GDP in 1830 is estimated at $4.2b and the Mexican GDP is estimated at $0.4b (in 1950s US dollars). This would put the US economy at about 10 times the size of the Mexican economy in 1830. The standard of living in the US was about 5 times better than in Mexico in 1830. The military strength of both countries in 1830 was probably very little. The US maintained a peacetime army of just under 6,000 men in 1830, and a small navy. The Mexican army was probably slightly smaller as was the Mexican navy. The US obviously could mobilize more military strength from its larger population and economy than Mexico could, but neither country maintained much standing military in 1830.
&gt;If it were guaranteed that you would win the lottery in 3 months, are you not going to feel good? Are you saying with this analogy that feeling good is the opposite of feeling fear? In other words, feeling bad=fear? I disagree. Also an emotional reaction that has no basis in reason is per definition irrational. What rational reason do you have to feel fear? "Because biology" is not a rational reason, just an explanation. A rational reason would be something that explains why if you had the choice, why you should choose feeling fear.
&gt;How do you define what an internal mechanism is versus the environment? I would say the brain is an internal mechanism that controls behavior. The brain is not the environment, the brain just is the person, or at least is an essential part of the person - if you take it away, you don't have a person anymore. So it is internal to the person in that sense. I should distinguish internal environments in the form of one's body from internal mechanisms to concepts like the mind/soul/etc. An individual's body is also an environment, it can also affect their behavior (say a stomach ache may make someone less likely to eat.) The brain itself is part of the body, and changes to the brain can lead to changes in behavior; this isn't particularly surprising. What I am referring to as an internal mechanism is something beyond that, concepts that are both entirely unobservable, yet are constantly attributed to as the cause of behavior, people would say these are things within the brain: things like the "mind, soul, will," or explaining behavior with emotion/feelings/thoughts as opposed to considering them as behaviors themselves or the bi-products of behavior. &gt;And the brain has the capacity for free will in the sense that it can take in data about the world, imagine various future possibilities, weigh out different motivations and desires, and then choose one particular course of action. The brain doesn't act in a vacuum though, it is also part of the environment and will think and do the things you mentioned based on environmental factors as opposed to freely. Perhaps receiving a school paper will emit thinking behavior, just as an example. While you could say that without the brain behavior couldn't occur, that behavior still wouldn't occur in a vacuum, there still needs to be environmental factors for behavior to occur, the brain, like the rest of an organisms biology, is responsible for behavior only in the physical sense rather than a casual one, if that makes sense. To make it clearer, fleeing behavior wouldn't occur just because the brain "said to flee," it would occur if some environmental factor (say a giant bear) appeared in front of the organism &gt;With this kind of free will, it still makes sense to say that we make choices, that choices have causal power, and moral blame and praise still make sense. When you morally blame or praise someone for something they did, you are affecting the step in their mental process where they weigh out different motivations and desires. Praise is actually a very effective reinforcer in humans, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to use mentalsitic explanations to explain how it works. A much more reasonable explanation is that praise is often paired with unconditioned reinforcers (food, water, etc.) or other conditioned reinforcers (money, attention, etc.) and consequently develops reinforcing properties. Blame also acts like this, but in the other direction with punishment instead.
&gt;A loving father does not threaten his child with abandonment just because the child made a mistake. Straw man, and nothing to do with the conversation at hand, we are not discussing how could a compassionate god behaves the way he does, we are discussing the nature of forgiveness. The person you replied to answered <PERSON>'s first question validly. You do not need to be directly wronged to be in the postion to forgive. Your response to his second point though is a good one, by the nature of your response I assume you are speaking of the chrisitian god? Regardless I would say any deity that needed you to ask for forgiveness is not about appeasing said deity, but rather an admission to guilt, with the intention of doing better in the future. The asking for forgiveness, I would assume, would be for the benefit of the one who wronged.
&gt;I don't think that I have enough information to know for sure. I'm inclined to believe that the hell stuff was added in afterward as a means of social control. How much of the bible do you think this applies to? If only that statement counts as .01%, where would you place the percentage for the whole of man's personal influence on the Bible? &gt;Thank you for recognizing that I haven't said those things. This almost sound sarcastic, if it is I did not mean to say that those things about your belief. If it was genuine thank you for your thanks :)
&gt;There is not an Amendment saying you must be in a militia to posses firearms. That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment says. If the right to keep and bear arms had no restriction, being part of a militia wouldn't have been mentioned. They easily could have made the 2nd Amendment read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that isn't what they wrote, they inserted the clause about a militia for a reason. You can't just "white out" that part either.
A benevolent God would never require a sacrifice to stop himself from torturing people. Substitutional atonement isn't very benevolent either. Not only is it unjust to the victim, it is unjust to the people who were wronged by the people being "forgiven." How does killing a hobo un-rape or un-murder anybody?
The game, I don't know if there is more then one but its called Game of Thrones in the steam library. I want to get DayZ but I've been waiting for a good sale on it. Maybe this Black Friday. Oh and GOT is amazing, I look forward to that show year round. It was the only thing on TV I watched besides Homeland for 2 or 3 years there. I recently got back into TV as I have been out of work and not gaming but that's mostly Simpsons or Futurama. Anyways real glad to hear from ya glad its going good bub. I'm going to pull out my tablet and read some comics.
Yes, I suggest checking out /r/TalesFromRetail just one quick story will make your jaw drop in awe. I'll tell you a quick one of mine. Middle of day, lady wants to buy a candy bar, as it so happens it is on sale from .89cents to .50cents. Cool cool, I'm all happy and stuff as per usual. And she inquires to ask why the price is like that, I say they're on sale. She's like no, the price says .89cents... anyways a lot of back and forth later during this time one of my quips in hesitation was "...I-I can make it more expensive if you'd like" and then the lady behind her had to interject and say that they were actually cheaper and she was getting a great deal.
&gt;Look into anarchism and syndicalism to name but two of the many. If anyone else is interested in these two ideologies, I could recommend reading on the ideologies themselves or on revolutions in which they have been put into practice, from the (contested) Paris Commune to the Magonista Revolt to the Free Territory and to the Spanish Revolution in Anarchist Catalonia, in addition to anarcho-syndicalist labor movements, like the Industrial Workers of the World in the English-speaking world, and modern indigenous liberation movements in Mexico inspired in part by anarchism and other forms of libertarian socialism.
&gt;But, classical anarchism was very committed to internationalism and the notion that statelessness would be a product of greater organization and order. At least that's how I understand it. &gt;Now, you might say 'how could they get rid of armies? Wouldn't that make them vulnerable to attack?' To which I would reply that not too long ago my city used to periodically go to war with its neighbouring cities, we no longer maintain garrisons here to prevent such attacks, the idea of invading Montreal or Buffalo is so foreign that people would scarcely understand you if you proposed it. Anarchists wish to extend that principle to the whole world. A difficult proposal, but not one that lacks value. So are you proposing an intermediate, international vanguard state that is set up not to supervise the internal activities of its members, but to protect against those groups which are violently opposed to the internationalist system? That anarchy is the ultimate goal, but is achieved through some kind of heavily modified, heavily decentralized leninist vanguard system?
&gt;By "pay for my own medical expenses" I mean pay for my own insurance, by not wasting my money on it while I'm young and healthy. As I mentioned to the OP, this approach requires that certain protections provided by the ACA still being in place when you're old: &gt;Not if the Affordable Case Act ('Obamacare') is repealed, which the president and the Republican party have promised. Up until the Affordable Case Act, insurance companies can deny someone coverage for pre-existing conditions. So if it weren't for this bill that forced a kind of 'socialism' on insurance companies, he might not be able to buy insurance at all if he develops an illness before then. It seems like the approach you're proposing for him of saving up to buy insurance later in life runs a bit contrary to your CMV. It requires a kind of mandated non-discrimination that would slightly increase cost for healthy people.
&gt;Luckily there are many highly educated theists on here who love to read about and discuss their own and other religions, and with whom I can have good conversations. These Christians don't invoke biblical or papal infallibility, and so can have a reasonable discourse. Still, if you're going to challenge me on my beliefs, you have to be prepared to hear the answer, no matter how boring you think it is. Otherwise, don't initiate the conversation. &gt;Put another way, what evidence would change your mind on this issue? If one of the premises were proved false, and the Church was thus shown to not be infallible, then of course, why should I accept the Immaculate Conception as the absolute truth? Another way would be to show that the Church has contradicted itself in its infallible statements.
In my business I often have Hispanic customers. I hate to say it, but the vast majority of them spend very little money, but love to make a mess and waste my time. (they bring clearly priced items to me and then ask me how much, or if I add everything up and it is more than they expected they make a huge hassle by choosing to put back one item at a time.) granted, this behavior is not limited to Hispanic folks, but at least with others I don't have to sit there even longer while their children translate everything for them. And these children are bilingual with American accents, they are generally 8-15 years old. So these people have certainly been in the country long enough to learn how to say numbers in English. Sorry. /rant.
I have no trouble accepting that it would be morally permissible in many cases to not follow that law. But let me compare this to the right to free speech. There are many cases in which it would be useful or beneficial to outlaw specific statements Westoro Baptist is a good example. But we still protect their right to free speech because you just don't mess with free speech, it is considered in many parts of the world, especially the US, be one of the most important human rights. Yes, if free speech were outlawed, people would still figure out ways to anonymously spread their messages, but it would be so much better to just leave free speech as it is. An even better and more relevant example right to the absence of warrantless searches and siezures. Sometimes police know a certain house is a drug house, but can't prove it enough to obtain a warrant. In these situations, yes, it would be easy and beneficial to waive the right mentioned above and go bust the drug house. But letting the drug house coninue operation is a better alternative than giving the police the power to search any house any time they want. Laws against resisting arrest may help law enforcement, but are my no means the lesser of the two evils. It would be better to let a few criminals get away than continue to give the police this power to put people in jail for just running away.
As... enthusiastic as Nonmetallic is, his advice is spot on. This sort of thing leaves all KINDS of damage that won't be detected until later, and by then it will have had an effect. Try to get in touch with the brother and tell him if he ever wants to talk to someone about anything, you'll help him. I would avoid directly mentioning "your sister told me about what she did," because it might cause him to be embarrassed and avoid you. Just leave it vague and say that you can help him if he needs it, and then try to listen to him if he has anything to say. You might also talk to a teacher or someone and mention you know someone who was sexually abused, and if they have any resources you can draw on. Teachers, iirc, have to be on the lookout for things like these, so any teacher at school should have a list of people you could talk to.
Other people have mentioned that your father's reaction seems slightly... overblown, and the previous requirements (of asking permission to go places, of having to "check in" multiple times per day, etc) are rather harsh for someone who is 20 years old. Perhaps this is the time for you to make a stand and break free from these constraints? If they're funding your college education, that may not be entirely possible, but it is possible to stand up to your parents and say that you need more space. You're in college, you're an adult, and you deserve a lot more freedom than they are giving you. It's important that they see that. Shortly after I turned 18, I remember I asked my mom if I could go bike over to a friend's house and spend the night. She said "Do you need anything from me?" and I replied that I did not - I had my own method of transportation and I wasn't going to need any extra cash, or a ride in the morning. She said "Well, if you don't need anything, then you don't need to ask for anything. You're old enough that you don't need my permission to go places." Now I still ask my parents about things from time to time, but I'm not asking permission anymore, I'm either telling them where I'll be, or asking for advice. And I'm doing the former less and less, given that I'll be graduating soon and I don't live at the house. You need that sort of freedom - at least to some degree - otherwise you will find a bit of trouble in transitioning to living on your own. Other than that, go visit your mom. It'll hopefully make her happy, and it might make you happy too. But if she starts nagging you, don't put up with that! I'm guessing that the foot ulcer isn't... super deadly? So it's not as if her life is at stake here. If her presence becomes upsetting, don't subject yourself to it.
While that racist version does seem to predate the tiger version, how much that counts as the whole rhyme having racist roots depends on how recent you count something as roots. [The Eeny, meeny, miny, moe rhyme is much older than any modern version and quite potentially has its true roots in an ancient Germanic pagan divination incantation.](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iene_miene_mutte) For example the same rhyme also appears in Dutch in a perfectly plain version, which if I translate it to preserve the rhyme would be something like: &gt; Eeny, meeny, miny, meat, &gt; Ten pounds of wheat. &gt; Ten pounds of cheese, &gt; Tell me who the boss is please. Usually used to decide who is what when playing hide-and-seek and stuff like that. So you've got some leeway to consider the even older versions the real real roots of the rhyme. Unless if saying ancient pagan incantations is also horrifying to you, then I might just've made things even worse. Sorry!
&gt;That's a really pretty plant, and would be a welcome addition to my Moms flower garden. It is endangered though, there are very few naturally suitable areas left. &gt;As for Saaremaa Island, what's going on here? lol. It is <PERSON> (*<PERSON>*), a mythological giant hero of the island, from whom the later Baltic German noble family the [von Tolls](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_von_Toll) are supposed to be descended. He was supposedly so tall that he could almost walk in the sea between the Western Estonian islands. The woman is his wife, <PERSON> <PERSON>, because [most of Saaremaa Island](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/43ogtr/map_of_estonian_territory_where_one_letter_of_the/) doesn't pronounce the letter Õ and say Ö instead, his name is pronounced <PERSON>* ("Great Dimwit").
&gt; Why do you debate at all? It is a fun way to pass time, and it helps to exchange ideas. Even if I can't change the mind of someone I'm debating with I might change the mind of someone else who is reading or hearing it. &gt; Arguing has never been about finding the truth. Only if you are dishonest. If what you say is obviously false and you can be shown to be wrong your won't be argued with, you will be laughed at. &gt; It's about trying to convince others that you are right. Which only worsts if what you are saying is accurate and correct. If you say "Well everyone knows the Earth is flat and if you disagree with me you are a stupid gaylord." No one will take you seriously. Chances are they will openly and endlessly ridicule you. &gt; But that doesn't lead anywhere, because the other side is doing the same thing. Again, only if both parties are totally dishonest. I know of a large number of people whose minds have been changed by debates. Some of my worldviews have been changed by an argument backed by logic and facts. &gt; What I have noticed while debating online is that people respond only to the parts of an argument that they disagree with That is usually how a debate works. &<PERSON>; In regards to the parts that they did not respond to, I'm specifically talking about parts that they disagreed with initially, but at a certain point stopped addressing them. They continue on as if those parts were never even included in the argument There is a point where sometimes you have to move on, or ignore one small detail to get to the bigger picture. But some people will just avoid addressing some subjects if they know they will lose. &gt; Debate is less like a discussion with the intent to find truth, and more like a verbal boxing match. Again, debating works best if you have facts on your side and you can show it. Although it does take some considerable skill to verbally joust. And in some cases there are people who are good at debate not because they are right but because they are good and mental gymnastics. &gt; Nobody appears to be open-minded in a debate setting, they just want to win. What's the point? Again, this hinges on the honesty of the debaters. A number of times creationists have destroyed their own credibility by openly admitting you can't change their mind because they will only accept facts that support their world view, <PERSON> did that. A lot of time the debate isn't don't for the benefit of those doing the debating but those who are watching the debate.
&gt; Humans could convert the fight into something like 50 MMA fighters vs 1 Gorilla 10 times in a row. This one, the first one seems to apply. Gorillas aren't carnivorous the same way Lions are and won't be goaded so easily into fighting by just starvation. They are smart enough to see problems, but hopefully not smart enough to see through problem. If one goes down after they started the fight outnumbered that would likely segue into numbr 2: &gt; Humans could know that direct physical confrontation is fruitless and out posture the Gorillas.
I sent out some Christmas cards to friends, mechanic, tailor, etc for the first time this year. One of my friends told me she hung it up on her wall and I went to my mechanics yesterday to get my tires put on and they had my card hanging from the counter and they said how much they appreciated it. Really made me feel good
If you haven't used it you can cancel and they will refund you. Signed up for my free student prime account but I started chipping in on my roommates prime and forgot about the student account. Saw a charge on my CC a few months later but hadn't bought anything so they refunded it
I have a coworker like you, he's played soccer through college and did it also as an adult until he injured himself. However, off the field he seems very clumsy -- as an example a few months back he was going down an escalator and accidentally bashed his head on a pole because he wasn't paying attention and was leaning over the escalator. He's very smart, but there's something that causes clumsiness that doesn't make sense.
I would talk with your supervisor of the show and bring them into the loop as well. What's going on is honestly not all your fault -- you have to work to stay in school and also do all the assignments to stay in the program. It is a little embarrassing, but I think if you're honest about the difficult situation you're in right now I feel like they won't be too difficult on you.
It has to do with a compulsion to preserve the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalists see the Bible as the *only* authoritative word on Earth [(Sola Scriptura)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura), so if the credibility of that authority is scratched, the whole house crumbles down. I've heard many of them say, "you have to accept all of the Bible as inerrant or none of it." They are right.
Check out the book *The Holocaust by Bullets*. It's about a priest's search for these mass graves. About 1.5 million Jews were killed and buried in mass graves outside of their villages, without being transported to concentration camps. These mass graves are still there and people in the towns know where they are. The priest and his team uncovered many of these. It is a time-consuming process and the generation who knows where they are are dying off.
&gt; Assuming the absolute worst, the parole officer is getting a kick back, and therefore says "You need to stay there" Wow. Is it really necessary to speculate that far down that road just to give the OP advice? EDIT: To clarify, down that road does not refer to the amount of time it would take us to see the first paycheck... I'm talking about the number of assumptions made in driving towards a criminal conspiracy to explain what could be a miscommunication.
&gt; The woman does not have the right to end the life of the fetus, only to remove it from her body. Interesting. Of course, this viewpoint begs an interesting question of who pays for it (which I would think should rest entirely on the mother), but that conversation is far too complex to tackle today I think. I apologize for misunderstanding... I read too quickly sometimes. Still, this IS an abortion discussion so I hope you can see why I wasn't able to interpret your statement of "it's her body" as anything other than meaning death to the child. I don't think "removal without death" is considered an abortion is it?
&gt; Why do you think God sets up an impossible standard for so many people? And such a strange one. It seems to make sense from the point of view of a man-made institution wanting to garner followers it can psychologically manipulate but absolutely no sense from God's point of view.
&gt; I refuse to believe that people who insist they'd believe if the Bible was full of irrelevant science factoids are sincere. Well, that's not the claim I was making but since you mention it, it would surely be impressive if <PERSON> was to give the exact age of the earth, the universe and life on earth. When these facts were revealed by science millennia later it would be a lot more difficult to dismiss his other truth claims. I, for one, would certainly take what he said a lot more seriously. &gt; I have no doubt that <PERSON> (the human nature, not the divine nature God the Word) knew nothing more about science than his peers. It doesn't make a difference, it's completely insignificant. Since <PERSON> was God does this mean he was willfully ignorant of these things? Kind of like how God gave up some power to allow humans to have free will.
&gt; Choice, in the sense that there is nothing outside of Him that determines this. As <PERSON> put it to <PERSON>, I am that I am. So, he *just is* that way, and he never had any choice to be that way, as opposed to being a God who considers lying and thievery good? &gt; &gt; contingent morality &gt; not sure what this [means] Lying and thievery could have been perfectly moral, if His whim had gone another way. Maybe that's what you expect from your god. But you also seem to be the type who expects that if He had declared <PERSON> to be invalid, we would be incorrect in finding it convincing. Together, those two things make you sound like a presuppositionalist; which means that you haven't been taking any of this seriously in the first place.
&gt; A kid could break his leg trying to climb up the roof to see <PERSON> land. Risky action performed because of false information. A kid could similarly break his leg trying to see a beautiful bird, which is real. &<PERSON>; So if child asked me if Santa was real, I wouldn't say yes, but I wouldn't say no either But that's not how you treat religion, for some reason. Why the exception for <PERSON>? Any other non-anti-theist atheist would similarly do the same, perhaps, and just withhold attacking religion and belief in God, but you don't. Why is God something that you need to disparage and disprove adamantly but <PERSON> something you'll let slide? &gt; I don't think though that things like hope require us to lie to others. Hope can be based on evidence. It typically isn't though, it's based on our desires rather than on evidence. If I hope to do well on a test tomorrow, yes I have good reason to believe I will do well if I studied hard, but ultimately this *hope* is substantiated as a desire to do well, rather than a reason to. &gt; I disagree that optimism requires faith. To me it's simply the rational acceptance that good things have a reasonable chance of happening. And that is irrational, we have no good reason to suppose good things will happen over bad things. If anything, it would be more rational and pragmatic to assume the worst outcome will always happen, but we don't do that because it's psychologically harmful behaviour. We do things with an assumption of optimism, that we will be successful, without any reason at all.
I'm studying to be a mental health counselor. When I tell people this, I often get uneasy reactions with people thinking I'm judging them, analyzing them, or even somehow reading their minds. Sometimes, family that means well will give me a few details about a person I've never met and ask me for my "professional" opinion about them. It doesn't work like that. I wish that the general public had a better understanding of the fact that counseling doesn't work (or even really exist) without a client consenting to be a part of it. For the most part, gone are the days of typical Freudian psychoanalysis where a patient would lie on a couch and a therapist would sit behind them and analyze their subconscious motives from their unedited ramblings. Therapy is a collaborative process between a therapist and client which requires time, trust, and effort from both parties. Many more therapists these days employ Rogerian influenced theoretical orientations which highlight warmth, connection, and unconditional positive regard. Also, people who seek therapy aren't "crazy". In fact, I think just about everyone I know could benefit from it. It actually takes a lot of courage to really open yourself up to someone and look at yourself from a different point of view.
So last semester, a small incident happened with a professor where I had a visiting professor (taught a class for a semester) request a hug and started kissing my neck while I was making up an exam during office hours. After that, I stopped attending class due to being nervous about the professor and my grade dropped from a low A to a C. While this isn't horrendous, it was certainly lower than every other grade I had and negatively impacted my GPA. I waited until the next semester to report as I didn't want to ruin the guy's career if I was just overreacting. I thought "he didn't actually sexually assault me, plus he's taught all over the world; it was a big honor for my school to have him; he's a fullbright scholar; i dont want to ruin his life". During the beginning of second semester though, I heard a few rumors that other girl(s) had been speaking up about sexual harassment (though I haven't had any proof about those). By then the professor was done with his semester on our campus and he had left. I didn't really want much done as I just wanted the whole issue to be done with. They offered my counseling (which I took) because it brought up some past issues with being sexually assaulted. The main thing that I asked for though was to have the class struck from my record as a retroactive withdrawal and the Title IX coordinator said he would work on it. This was in January of this year. My friend who had different circumstances (a poorly ranked professor) in a class requested a retroactive withdrawal and got the acceptance within a month. I emailed the Title IX coordinator at the beginning of the summer asking about it and he said he had heard nothing back and it didn't seem to be of high priority to him. Now I'm getting close to applying to jobs and internships and potentially transferring from the university and the grade is still on my transcript with literally months after when this issue should've been taken care of and no end in sight. This still affects my GPA negatively and I don't feel like this is right. I don't even know if there was an investigation done or what is going on with the school. They seem to feel like it's very "case-closed" but I don't feel satisfied with what happened as I feel like they brushed me off and still are. What should be expected in cases like these? What rights do I have? What do I do?
Again, the crime / arrest has to be wrt violence or immediately protecting property. A citizen can't unarrest, nor can 'they' press charges, whilst police can (as a federal agency). Suspicion of providing false information (which, at best this *might* have been) wouldn't cover arrest. Bye the bye - lying to a security guard is not a crime, and presenting invalid ID is not a crime in itself, either ... unless falsely identifying yourself for 'official' purposes. If I show you ID saying I'm <PERSON>, you can't arrest me (not because it'd be ludicrous, and because it'd obviously be a 'joke') but because there's no 'crime' ... even if I then went on to charge you $5 for a photo. Because there's no 'violence'. You would be able to sue me in civil court for misrepresentation had you paid me that $5, but you can't arrest me for ID fraud because there's no immediate threat. Even if you know 100% that I'm lying. The world would be a very strange place were it otherwise the case... I'd arrest my local market manager for mislabeling prices. I'd arrest my neighbour for noise violations. I'd arrest local youths for tressapssing in the church. I'd arrest the police for speeding whilst not on duty. :-/ failing to adequately ensure, or attempting to circumnavigate a liquor licence is illegal. The issue is obtaining or providing alcohol to a minor - not the ID itself... which is why fake IDs can be sold as novelty items. Falsifying official documentation is a separate issue.
Here's the issue: you, u/phantom_ganon are currently connecting my name to pedophelia. Right now. In this post. No law enforcement has done it. I haven't been arrested for it. Not even officially accused. You just put them (my reddit name and the act) in association. By this account, would it be punishable? Are you saying you deserve criminal penalties, now? Or do you need to be 'media'? Do I have to be arrested for it before you can't say it? Who is 'permitted' to know, legally? And, who tells those people? And what happens if THOSE people tell others? What if, instead of the New York Times or CNN telling people, it's a blog post or just a comment like yours, that gets sent to Twitter and retweeted? Who do you punish then? Are they all suddenly 'the media'? If your idea comes to fruition, before it's even ABUSED (which I haven't outlined above) it could still destroy too many people, while never fixing the problem it was designed to stop. Yay... Another stupid, pointless, abuseable, damaging, ineffective law.
When I Google the term, I get a few definitions that confirm my point about the actual definition of the term: a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending/patronizing way. That's why I asked you to provide some examples. If you can't provide any examples, I guess I can assume it's because you don't have any compelling examples to provide. &gt; Arguing the semantics is attempting to divert the conversation from it's purpose. It's a discussion about the meaning/use of a word. It's a semantic argument whether you like it or not. If semantics are off limits, the whole conversation is moot.
**To answer the many comments making the point that voyeurism is already illegal: I'm aware. My point is that voyeurism would likely take place where someone is naked or the potential for voyeurism is there. We've all heard stories of people peeking in the girl's locker room.** Here's my point, read carefully so I don't have to clarify repeatedly: **SITUATION** Cameras are in public places with locker rooms. Not in the locker rooms but at the entrance to track who enters the rooms and when. As it stands if a man is spotted going in the locker room there's a problem and evidence because a man has no excuse to be in there. Now he sits down and browses his phone but is actually, taking video/livestreaming/taking photos. Some women feel uncomfortable with the angle his phone is at and his demeanor that they interpret as masculine. Someone calls security. **HOW ITS HANDLED** 1- Identity relies on word alone (many friends advocate this and tell me any other way is bigoted) Some people advocate that the laws require no post-op, no identification. If this were the case then the evidence of a man entering the woman's bathroom is void is the man identifies as a genderfluid/bigender/pre-op trans who does not conform to traditional gender roles. There is no evidence other than an accusation and the filming gets off scott free without evidence. 2- With some identification checkpoints used as a security measure (my preference) On the other hand if the law requires that your license reflect your gender identity then when you're challenged the camera evidence can be used. The security can then check your identification and it matches the gendered restroom you're fine. However there is no gender option on licenses for genderfluid or bigender. Having the license checkpoint would deter from going through all the necessary steps to change how their gender is recorded in documents, license etc.
Makes me nuts too. If you need a handicap placard to park in a handicap parking space, why shouldn't your dog have to display a placard? But nooo, you aren't allowed to even question it. (you should totally get an [ESA miniature horse.](http://www.guidehorse.com/news_emot_supt.htm) You could glue a horn to it's head and have your ESA unicorn :)
41 F here in southern MN. It's only 5 am, but the high today is 52. We're supposed to get that rain here today! The wind is already crazy, it sounds like someone pretending to be a ghost in my apartment ("oooOOOOOOOOoooooo!"). As long as it's not snow, im happy. Half my fb news feed is from friends in Iowa talking about the rain, then i open reddit and it's here too! Haha
How much do you know about the potential employer? Is it the same sort of work? Is it common or uncommon for people in your industry to be treated well? There are way too many factors involved, and the only one that can make the decision about what is right for you and your family is you. Is there a specific reason you think you might hate the new job, or is it just a general worry about the unknown? If you think there is a good chance that the new job will make you miserable, I would not recommend changing.
A good point, that I don't think I have specifically considered. My initial reaction is that it should be common sense that being overweight and sedentary isn't healthy. And free health education is easy to come by, right? I am not sure that ignorance can fully excuse it. Is there anything I am missing, or am I giving people who are less well off too much credit?
Why does creation entail the right to kill? Why is God the divine judge? Why does the divine judge have the right to kill? Another way to put this is this; by what right does God hand out law? Might or creation are the only arguments I've ever heard. Well, might is evil. And creation has never been sufficient to allow killing; else parents would be able to kill their children. And sorry about the grammar and spelling. I'm writing on a cell phone.
Let's imagine that such a method exists. That method itself could be a lie that was programmed into the matrix for God to enjoy using. So, even if such a method existed, it could not be used by God to tell if God was perceiving the real universe, or just a brain in a vat. Therefore, such a method does not exist.
&gt; Should I forget about the Texas Legal Aid and pay for an attorney myself now that I have the money to do so to hurry this process along? Or should I be patient and wait? Thats on you. If the legal aid is an LSC, there should be a information on their website to complete their request. If you can find the manager of that unit and/or section and send an email thats usually a better way to find out if you qualify thank intake which is always slammed. But I'd say if they haven't sent you out forms or taken your info yet to even see if you qualify or are conflicted out, you are still aways away from an attorney. &gt;Am I legally entitled to split the money evenly that our mom left only to me? Naw, its life insurance. Thats got nothing to do with her estate. Thats your cash. Talk to an attorney before you share cause depending on how much, there may be legal structures like trusts or even different accounts you want to use to give you control/lower tax lliability.
&gt; Not yet, and I'm trying to avoid damages if possible. If he hasn't stopped posting yet, I'm worried he won't stop for a while. I don't want this to cause problems in the future by some freak accident. Until you suffer measurable damages, it doesn't constitute defamation under MO law. Now, if you really want, you can consult a lawyer and ask them to draft a cease and desist letter. However, they will most likely tell you that is all they can do given the situation hasn't breached the defamation line yet. It may be better to simply block this person on all social media and move on with your life.
I actually wrote a whole section of my thesis on sociolingustics in colonial Shanghai, where English, French, Shanghainese (itself a mix between the Suzhou and Ningbo dialects), and to a lesser degree, Cantonese and various other Chinese dialects all had a part in the colony. What wound up happening is a great deal of pidginization (now somewhat erased, but still extant in Shanghainese slang, I can give examples if needed) and the rise of the clerk/comprador class who can function in several languages at once. The work clerk, when transliterated to Shanghainese, still hold the meaning for "shrewd/good at business". Of course it also gives rise to cliques and misunderstandings. The conflict between the English and Chinese speakers aside, the Japanese also came in and mucked about with sometimes deadly consequences. See <PERSON> *Empire Made Me* for a great case study. This ranged everything from the French deciding to build a road through the Fujian Native-place Association cemetery (causing a riot) in the 1880s to the appointing of the Green Gang as the police force in the French concession to the total lack of western awareness of the Chinese labor movement and student movements. For books on the topic, <PERSON> and <PERSON> would be good places to start. I don't doubt that some of the conflicts were deliberate - the French trying to assert influence, and the westerners generally disregarding the "illegible" Chinese society until it was way too late. This goes way beyond language, but it's a good way to look at how a polyglot, cosmopolitan society existed only a few generations ago.
Yes and no. [This](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensh%C5%8D_embassy) mission and one other were sent, but were not at the Shogunate or Imperial level. Otherwise, relations were maintained with the Ryukyu Kingdom, China, and likely whatever kingdoms were extant in Korea/Goryeo at a given time. Relations with China and Korea were habitually rocky, because the former did not agree with the Japanese assertion of Emperor status (that is, that the Emperor signed official letters to the Chinese court using the characters for Emperor (天皇 or 帝) and the Chinese imperial court felt they should be using the character for King (王) as a tributary nation to the Chinese empire), and the Japanese kept invading the latter. Source: Mostly memory from my Sino-Japanese Relations course and some dictionary doublecheck for the characters. I hold a BA in Polisci and East Asian Studies with a minor in History.
&gt;But since there is proven prejudice and social pressure against girls in engineering, shouldn't there be some campaign for women into math/science through Oh yeah, definitely. I am all for encouraging women and underrepresented groups to join in the fun :) As a black male I've had to deal with my share of assumptions and feeling like an outsider. Programs to help people see the possibilities who otherwise would not have had exposure are great in every way. I will rejoice the day when gender and all other types of biases are gone from our society. We just need to be prepared that it won't be exactly 50/50, and that should be OK! There are tons of women who are smart enough for science/engineering/math.... and most of them probably become doctors. And that's great. For most people that's far more appealing and rewarding than sitting behind a keyboard or a desk. That's something I definitely would have considered if I was more of a people-person from the beginning. This is an aside from my argument here, but the main thing that has annoyed me about the conversation lately about women in math and computer science, is that some want to actually change the field to make it more appealing to women. The fact is, there are few areas where one can make good money while being an introvert/socially awkward/autism spectrum/etc. Programming and to a lesser extent math are some of the only areas where one can get by without being a people person (or good enough at socializing to fake it). The world is run by extroverts, and now they're trying to invade one of the last areas where severe introverts and awkwards can make a good living in peace. Every attempt to make CS more collaborative, touchy-feely, etc etc is attempting to kill this last safe haven. It's troubling that introverts/awkwards are so marginalized in society that people are willing to steamroll one group in favor of another. The interesting thing is that there are plenty of women who feel right at home in the CS/math geek culture.... and they're usually hardcore introverts/awkwards themselves. It's just that there's fewer women who fit that bill and so its not good enough.
&gt;But what about equal in dignity? Are not all people deserving of respect, that they have rights as a human? Would it not be accurate to state that dignity and respect are things that we expect to given to us and yet earned by others? I feel that matters of dignity and respect are best observed by the outsider. On the matter of dignity, it is an issue of how we feel we will be perceived by others that dictates our responses and actions. I would argue that dignity is something people have by default, yes, but easily lose. Desire and impulse, however, are far greater fuels for one's intentions and actions. Should those desires and impulse supersede one's need for dignity, one can and will cast aside their dignity in pursuit. On the matter of respect, I feel that respect has multiple levels of interaction. There is basic respect, such as being courteous and polite. Those things are automatically given or at least should be. Going beyond that, however, there are levels of respect that come with time and accolade. We bestow a much greater level of respect to someone who has suffered in battle than someone who is homeless. We give much greater levels of respect to the elderly than someone our own age. In both cases, I would say that while all people are capable of giving and receiving both dignity and respect, they are neither entitled to it nor compelled to provide it.
&gt; Is ignorance immoral? Ignorance is a state of being, not a choice. Choosing to remain willfully ignorant can absolutely be immoral. &gt; We can't be moral if you hold that we must get a good outcome, bad things happen, we can't predict the future, we can try with statistics to build a better world or at least a better life, but it simply won't work as planed ever, so we should limit morality to defining the truly evil. It's not about choosing the course of action that *will* result in the best outcome, it's about choosing the course of action that has the best odds of getting the best outcome. When playing poker, just because there's a chance you're going to lose that doesn't mean there isn't a best move at any given point. Even if you lose a hand, even if you're on a losing streak, making the right choices is a net win in the long run. Same with morality. You're not concerned with the outcome itself to determine if your course of action is the best, but the expected outcome of your action. We don't need perfect knowledge.
&gt; I'm not talking about people who flip coins and make random disagreements, I'm talking about people who have their own reasons for disagreeing Obviously, but you've already established that we're not talking about someone who has any knowledge or experience in the the topic in question, so whatever reason they have is no more respectable than a coinflip. &gt; maybe they don't have the necessary education to be able to express those reasons in terms which scientists will listen to You're kind of just said "they have no reason to think what they do" but with more words. Remember, a few posts up it was said that the people you're trying to defend have no knowledge about the topic at hand, so like I said before, they are logically precluded from having an opinion with relevance. They are literally incapable of having an informed opinion since they were defined as not having one. These people have no basis from which to disagree with the consensus.
As far as college GPA goes if you stay at the college those Deezen apps for fall you unless you retake the classes. If you want those off your GPA you will have to retake them or choose a different school where the letter grades won't follow you. As for feeling down about life everybody has their up-and-down years and are up-and-down points in life. I got a car with the help of my dad got in gauge broke up with my fiancé and moved out of the house all within like three months. It was a horrible time compared to that two years ago when me and that same girl we're super happy together in life is generally great. A couple years after that I got a new girl and almost did the same thing. Start out high. Things got low. I decided to break it off before they got worse. Now I'm at a High Point all by my lonesome and that's just fine. Life goes up and down but don't let the roller coaster rattle you. Enjoy the ride instead :)
For most, yes. For me I would rather spend the time with my parents on Christmas. I almost never do anything for New Year's. The problem is that since I don't have kids no one I work with felt like I should have the day off over those that do. I'm someone's kid. They want to see me, too. Plus, those same parents will most likely still be using that excuse when their kids are grown. Having kids is not the end all for getting to have holidays off. I'm not a partier like most my age so I would rather work New Year's vs Christmas.
Technically you can, you just really shouldn't. In fact, it's more likely that Bitcoin sellers shouldn't / won't take PayPal payment for bitcoin due to the fact that PayPal *always* side with the fraudster in cases where people buy Bitcoin and then claim that they never got anything (even though there is indisputable proof of the transaction in the public blockchain). One of the ideas behind Bitcoin is to take this power away from companies like PayPal - make sure that it can never be up to them to decide who gets the money. Another example is the WikiLeaks scandal - where Mastercard and Visa decided to stop sending donations to them. Why should these companies get to make these decisions? If I decide that I want to send some money somewhere, I should be able to do that without the consent of some third party. Bitcoin allows me to do that.
Whilst I believe that people should be honest, the fact is that the transwoman should have declined sex rather than disclosing at that point. That would have been the ethical thing to do. Announcing that you're trans can put you at risk, so doing it in someone else's house just before you're about to blow them is a really bad idea. That's a good way to get yourself killed. Not disclosing that you are trans to get someone to sleep with you is unethical (no different to any other deception to get someone to have sex with you). This woman blew the guy and *then* told him she was trans - and I don't think it is reasonable for a trans person to claim that being trans isn't an issue for a lot of people (and whether the trans person likes it or not, the reality is that the person they want to have sex with can decline to do so *solely* because they are trans - that is their right). You have a right to know who you are sleeping with. If a trans person doesn't get as much sex as they'd like as a consequence of that, well too bad for them - that's a shitty reason for dishonesty.
The vet didn’t do anything illegal. In fact, Texas has [medical privacy laws for animals] (http://www.veterinary.texas.gov/documents/vetact/VLA_2013.pdf) that apparently function in a way so that once that [veterinarian treats the animal they establish a medical relationship with the dog thief and would then have to report that the dog might be stolen to the their and not to you.] (http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/veterinarians-wrestle-with-legal-ethical-concerns-over-microchips-and-ownership) And to add to the people telling you to call the police, if you already did that and nothing happened you should see if you have any SPCA officers in your area, because they deal almost exclusively with animals and would be better suited to help or at least put you on the right path. Edit: After writing this and talking back and forth with u/NermalKitty , I realized there may actually be something illegal that veterinarian did. If you found out that the dog was taken there for care from the vet and not from some third party, they could actually be violating privacy laws in Texas, although in favor of the dog thief and not in your favor.
You owe the vet. The kennel (might) owe you. You should take the medical records to other vets and get their take. If everyone agrees that there are signs on neglect ( and bed sores are pretty damning) you might be able to hold them responsible for part of the bills. Also, I’m sorry for what you went through but 80% of your post is legally irrelevant. All that matters is whether the kennel’s negligence contributed to your dog’s condition.
I made the decision recently to connect my personal phone to my work email so I don't have to get a separate company phone. That was a huge mistake. Now I'm reading work emails as soon as they come in and trying to make business-ish decisions on Saturday nights. But on the other hand, I get a $50/month stipend for doing it.
I used to manage a pizza restaurant. People would call and order me to bake them a pizza and deliver it. And I did it. Because that was my goddamn job and the reason that the restaurant existed. If I didn't want to do it, I could have stayed home and prayed or something.
So for the infographic you included...why would it be improved by including Canada? Its specific role is to look at it in the US. The point isn't to compare to other countries. It makes completely fine sense to just leave it as Americans. Just because Canada is similar to us doesn't mean that everything we do needs to be a point of comparison between us and them. A country evaluating itself is completely fine and normal.
That wasn't so much the question. I know why I shouldn't walk around naked from a legal perspective. I'd like to know why it's a legal matter at all...why society is so scared of nudity to begin with. Why do we suppress sex so much to the point that a female nipple in public gets people enraged? It's an unhealthy social view.
The last place I rented had one small bathroom, then the master bedroom had a working toilet in the bottom. I had always presumed it was because the family that previously owned the house grew old and couldn't make it the five feet to go through a door to get to the toilet, but now that I think of it, maybe they hit the one-toilet breaking point.
Technically parents are allowed to give alcohol to children older than five in the UK. Kids can't be sold the alcohol, or consume it on licensed premises, and purchase of alcohol specifically on their behalf is illegal, but if you bought a sixpack for yourself and later decide that you want to share it with your six-year-old to calm them down, the law can't stop you.
I know this is probably extremely controversial, but is it really that bad if a pedophile gets their hands on the photo? No one is really harmed by them having it. The only real negative thing is that it is just really inherently creepy to know they are getting pleasure from the photo, but there is no real harm in it and no one even knows except them and perhaps other pedophiles.
This map is stupid. It is literally just playing off the size of the geographic area as though that means more than the actual people being governed. We are literally talking about more people living in these small areas, who gives a shit if they live in a small area? Why do people's votes deserve to matter less just because they live close together? Why should more of the choice of how people are governed be decided by the people who live in those other areas, even though there are less of them, just because they live more spread out?
But they’ll probably fire him the second he steps over a line and they think they have an excuse. One minute late to work? Fired. One minute late back from lunch? Fired. “Underperforming” in some way? Fired. They could still lose a lawsuit alleging pretext there, but that’s an involved process and they may hope OP will just walk away rather than fight.
Arguing with a supervisor about policy (the first time) is already enough for a for-cause termination, if it’s as you describe. Threatening legal action when none is justified is too. By the time it got to you, the conversation should have been about what time she can pick up her last paycheck. And WA is an at-will state, so as long as your reason isn’t illegal (gender, race, etc) you can just up and fire her. For-Cause would be determined by the state unemployment agency at some later date. That may not stop her from suing you, but if this isn’t about a policy making her do something illlegal, it doesn’t sound like she’d get far.
I will say, I'm scared right now. I'm apparently diabetic, which isn't too surprising given the family history, but it went undiscovered for a very long time (I was never big on sugar). Now I'm starting to experience things like numbness, random pain in my hands and feet, strange swelling in my legs, and as of a few days ago blister-like sores on one hip. I have no money and a hundred things I need to do to get back on my feet. I was already feeling overwhelmed--and now this. I'm really, really hoping those sores are nothing.
A *gorgeous* hotel room for two nights in Santa Cruz, CA! I paid in advance because they had a decent price on nonrefundable (I know) reservations. I'm really excited. I haven't been there in a few years and before that I lived there for about two years--it's not even that far away (4ish hours tops), I just haven't had the money/gotten around to it. I booked the hotel and my bf is paying for the rest of the trip. I'm really excited. I love taking trips with him, though we can't go to big or do it too often, and I love the ocean!
You should get very, very familiar with your lease. Now. Threatening eviction because you asked about a microwave is an excellent indicator that you're in for a bumpy ride. I'm talking about a familiarity with your lease such that if he threatens again, you can immediately slap down that nonsense in the moment. As far as microwaves are concerned, look in your lease. If it's not included, grab the $50 or $70 options on Amazon. Master the lease, otherwise you're in for a world of shit. Mark my words.
If she won't answer her phone, that's the end of it. You need to fire her. She needs to learn that you can't pull this sort of stunt as an adult. Yeah, it sucks, I would be mortified if my dick fell out at work, but it's something you have to learn to take in stride. Another thing to consider is that perhaps one of her coworkers said something to her about the accident that made the situation worse, and she fears coming back to hear more taunts. Leave her a message to this effect: "Hello, it's your manager. You've missed three days of work. I understand you're probably embarassed, and maybe someone said something or did something, but I will need to fire you soon if you refuse to at least talk to me. You're a really good worker, so please call me back and we can discuss where to go from here." If she doesn't, then terminate her and move on.
I had something like this happen to me too. Although it wasn't to the extent that he licked my feet, but it was everything other than that. My advice: confront him. (Although its a thing you should do regardless of it being easy or difficult), it should be easy on you for now, and it will be easy on him too. You don't want to hurt him when it gets too deep (pun intended), and if he is nurturing false hopes, they will be vanished. Best of luck :)
I wouldn't talk about it with your other friends anymore, what if they are agreeing with you when they are with you, and they agree with her, when she talks about you. If its tense she probably knows you are annoyed. Leave it be, enjoy yourself. If shes around don't be there. If she is, say your truth to her, not about her. It's her actions that cause problems, not her as a person. Say your truth to her, or suck it up. In reality, she probably thinks things about you too.
Yes, it has to have an egress window to be considered a sleeping room. Call the city building inspector's office. Your unit may not be the only one configured like that. Once you have a determination from the city that it is not a legal rental you can figure out what to do about it. If there are other units in the building that are OK I'd suggest that you ask/demand to be moved at no charge and no increase in rent and see how it goes.
You said that things are getting hostile. What if she decides to change the terms of your settlement on the house between now and when the divorce is finalized? Make sure any financial arrangement that you have with her is done through a lawyer so you know that it's legally binding. If she refuses to finalize the uncontested filing and decides to keep the house after you've moved out that would put you in a bad position.
I just started streaming Hearthstone like a week ago and of course im not very popular, especially since i suuuuuck at the game haha! But i actually was offered a donation last night, and stupid me, thinking i couldnt accept donations yet...i turned it down! Ugh. Oh well, still fun! Im hoping that being female will give me a slight edge even though im not very good, any suggestions as to ways i can stand out in my stream and be more fun/entertaining and get more views? What would you want to see?
Oh I hate that, or they wear a clothing style different than what they normally do, or if they're acting differently, flirting or something, their body language is not what I'm used to and it really throws me. I've learned to look at people's shoes, as most people only have a few pairs that they always wear, and that helps me a lot. I *know* that I know them, but it just takes me longer to process it and figure it out.
&gt;"Life is dangerous therefore we should not attempt to make life safer in any way" isn't much of an argument. That wasn't the argument I was attempting to make. It was more of a "well, no shit <PERSON>, of course people who own guns are more likely to be injured by a gun." Just like people who drive cars are more likely to be injured in a car accident. &gt;Fact: Suicide increases with easy gun access. Source? The US isn't even in the top 10 for suicides per capita but is in the top spot for guns per capita by a wide margin. In all the charts I've seen, the US is slightly ahead of the UK in suicides per capita, yet the UK has much stricter gun control. I've seen a bunch of studies where they conclude that removal of firearms from the household reduces the number of firearm suicide deaths. Well, duh. Of course it does. But I haven't yet found a study that says that the removal of firearms from the house *reduces suicide attempts*. If I were a suicidal person examining my options, I would obviously choose the most deadly and quickest one if it were readily available. Absent a gun, though, I might elect to use pills or hang myself instead. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'd want to see some data to back up your assertion. As a person who was formerly vehemently opposed to gun ownership for any reason, I'm obviously open to changing my view on this. &gt;"Gun control" in the USA means limiting sales of cheap handguns (which are popular with the petty street criminals everyone is concerned about) and magazine sizes to reduce fatalities in mass shootings. This CMV wasn't about gun control. <PERSON> said she couldn't think of any reason anyone should ever need a gun.
I assume you are talking about college campus, yes? If that's the case, for most of the country the minimum age for carry is 21 excluding most "young adults". Most likely you would find teachers carrying and older students. &gt;I believe that this would lead to more accidents and more injuries than it will solve by stopping a hypothetical school shooter. School shootings should be treated at the cause of the problem, not trying to stop it when it happens. CMV. The point shouldn't be just to prevent school shootings. How many students across the country are raped/mugged/assaulted each day? By being a student you sign away rights to carry defensive measures. People calling for campus carry recognize this as unjust. I taught at a school that was a few miles from a bad part of a major city. It was in a good area, but students would routinely get mugged walking to go home (student housing on campus was very limited). Why is this? Robbers knew that students a) would be carrying large amounts of valuable goods (macbooks, phones, etc) and b) would have limited defensive means. Given CC was legal in the state, students made a vulnerable target. And these muggings happened weekly. Likewise, in my undergrad institution, there was a service to walk women (and men, but it was directed to women) home from the library at night. This is very common throughout the country. CC was not allowed on campus. Think about that: the threat was so severe that an escort service was necessary, but student's could not take their defense into their own hands. Campus carry stems from a recognition that adults on campus have a right to the means of self defense as much as any other group.
There are actually studies and plenty of anecdotal articles showing the opposite, you could practically use Obamacare vs ACA as a proposal for showing how true that is, where explaining any number of policies within the ACA to large groups of conservatives and a huge percentage of them often agree with the individual pieces or the legislation as a whole...but if you present it to them from a conservative perspective, and sometimes even calling it the ACA, there is easily majority support...but put a D or especially attach the word Obamacare to it, and suddenly it's wildly unpopular.
It's not a matter of "only creating fabricated news stories"...it's that it's impossible to tell what is and is not fabricated and/or heavily edited/slanted because Fox makes stuff up so often. That's why I compared them to a bottom-rung tabloid...sure they sometimes go with the truth, but you would never take anything they say at face value...as opposed to say NewsHour on PBS (which is the most balanced, truthful, and fair news source I have ever seen that wasn't just a list of peer-reviewed journals).
Way to edit your comment. And those jobs aren't actively doing things that protect this country. Not sure how you can't comprehend the difference.... I mean, again, I don't blindly support the troops and stuff. I don't think war should be glorified at all. But what you're suggesting is just stupid. Also, lumberjacks? Really?
You seem to have missed my point about reasonable Republicans. When I said America has "reasonable republicans", I meant that there are republicans in America who are reasonable. I'm actually not sure how you could have missed that when I wrote it pretty clearly, but like you said, your state has shitty education. So you have a shitty economy and shitty education, but you're not suffering at all. Cool. If it's all the same with you, I'd like to leave this conversation. It's become increasingly depressing. Best of luck to your country in its challenging days to come.
There is a quote that goes something like this. If humanity went back to the dark ages, lost all of it's technology, and all of our memories, all human progress in the last 1000 years, science would come back, technology would return your story of an apple and snake would not.
I would put moral evil and good in the same realm as pain and pleasure. Just because an action isn't good doesn't mean it's evil, I would say there are actions that are neither. If I pass you on the street and call you an asshole or punch you, that morally evil, if I smile and give you a compliment or hand you money, that's morally good, if I simply walk by, that's neither.
Sounds like her family isn't worth knowing. Fuck'em. Go get your girl back. I probably wouldn't go to her house to do it though, get a friend of hers to arrange something. Have the friend call (not you, in case they are holding her phone) and arrange something. Or have them call and when she answers you take over.
&gt; Telling him hes a piece of shit doesn't help I'm glad you realised that. For the record, it never helps. Ever. Not ever. Never, Absolutely never. I don't really see what you're annoyed about. You are living your life. He is living his. You might not like it, but you'll have to accept it because it is really an issue between your parents and him, and your parents seem content to support their son. You can't make your brother be the way you want him to be, and nor should you try. Your only concern should be for his happiness and well being. To be honest, the whole past just sounded bitter. I'd say that, for whatever reason, you just don't like your brother, and you're seeking some kind of validation for that.
Go to r/trashy. A lot of white people there. Yeah we should get down on a culture, but you can't really broaden that out to 'black people'. Talk to any high school sophomore and you'll see the same culture. I think ghetto culture is more in our face because it's what we enjoy seeing.
I think it has to do with the culture. We live in a patriarchy society and buying women objectifies them. It leads to this mentality where you can buy and own a woman's sex which feeds into rape cultures. When you don't have the money, just steal it. It's when you lower the value of the thing to an object that something like that becomes ok. Its when men feel as if they're better or more powerful that the philosophy develops that you can treat people 'below' you like trash. It's when they're trash that exploitation becomes the daily norm. You have to change the script of the culture so that women are treated with respect without question or a moments hesitation before you can start talking about legalizing prostitution without fear of the repercussions of exploitation. But a part of me thinks that if a person is going to give their money for sex and another person is going to happily oblige for money, more power to the both of you and neither of you should be going to jail for it :P.
Airports are non-places in the worst sense of the word. One time I got stuck in Toronto for 6 hours because I hadn't paid to "reserve" my seat and the flights were overbooked. It took me as long to get from Rome to Toronto as it did from Toronto to Ottawa. Also, tiny American airports look like museums of 1960s-1970s style choices. Tell me your horror stories, your awesome stories, the worst airport you've ever seen - whatever goes!
If you're arrested for this, even if you're cleared, you are going to have an exceptionally shitty time travelling abroad and getting a new job that requires a credit check. I almost think you should talk to the police and get a business card in case you ever get arrested. You really, really, really want to keep yourself from getting booked. I am 99.999% sure this is illegal drugs. If the cops are "on their game", they're going to think the same thing and be glad you clued them in. Maybe they'll set up a sting.
&gt;"just because you're a 41 year old IT director doesn't mean you know everything" ...don't think I said anything about "knowing everything"... you insulted me (this time) by suggesting I didn't have a high school science education, when, as I clarified, I'm far beyond. I've taught grad students for crying out loud. ...and who said anything about "basing your life around" anything? You don't have to agree with a hypothesis to give people the room to believe what they want and pursue what they want for whatever reasons they want. Just because a scientist or engineer has a hypothesis, and their first tests don't demonstrate the predicted mental model, does that mean they automatically abandon the idea? Of course not.... so what we're really arguing is "How long does a reasonable person hang on to a broken hypothesis?" The answer is: it depends. So, looking down at people for taking longer to abandon a hypothesis than you would is kind of weak... I mean, <PERSON> had the hypothesis that if he used a vacuum, he could sustain a burning element in a light bulb. He had to try over 1,000 different substances for the element before he found one that proved his hypothesis. Some people cling to their parent-figure hypothesis despite lots of evidence to the contrary. That doesn't bother me. If it's not hurting you, really what business is it of yours?
You can reasonably believe either... &gt; The Russian ties didn't come from out of nowhere. ...or... &gt;There is not proof yet that he is an actual plant ...but you can't reasonably believe both unless you're insane or fail at simple logic. There's still no evidence <PERSON> or his team colluded with Russia in any way. There is, however, plenty of evidence that people in the previous administration declassified information and leaked it to the press in violation of the law. This makes me wonder why individuals like yourself ignore the obvious violations of the law that we can already prove occurred in favor of alleged violations of the law that we have no evidence actually happened. Would you care to explain to me the reasoning behind this thinking?
For the trinity, I only know its some people reading the Bible, yeah? I don't know that we should believe such an amazing claim just from reading one ancient book (or I guess its a collection of books). I'm not understanding what we're doing though. You want me to list out a bunch of proofs for the Trinity, and then show why none of them work? Why would I do that? How about, if you think there's a good one, provide it and lets see what happens. I got nothing on this front. I would find it strange though that there would be a problem with me not being able to provide a proof that is solid for something I don't believe in. There's something warped going on here. That aint my job.
I think there's too much emphasis and faith on God and heaven being perfect. The Bible talks about Satan/Lucifer wanting this and that, but doesn't go into great detail why. I'd like to read a story from the other point of view. Isn't it odd that there isn't Satan's word written down on paper? If God stops it from being written, then either free-will is being tampered with, or Satan doesn't have as much influence over people as some think. If there is such a book, let me know, but surely it'd be well known already. Because I don't believe God or Satan exist, this isn't a problem for me, but for those who do, what are your thoughts on there being no definitive anti-Bible?
Let's clarify- I by no means think companies should *call* you if you don't even get an interview. That's a waste of time, and just asking to get an earful of profanity-laced verbal rage from each and every person you didn't hire. As I said, a simple automated system would be pretty damn simple to accomplish. I'm also not bitching, and I don't think companies should absolutely have this. But it's nice, and greatly appreciated by a person under the duress of a job hunt. You're showing the type of thinking that causes everyone to behave like colossal douches to people they don't know. The person behind me walking into the grocery store earlier never *earned* my respect, but that didn't stop me from holding the fucking door open for them since their hands were full. Common courtesy is not something that is earned, because it relates to how you interact with people you simply don't fucking know. So much bullshit exists just because people don't think they *owe* anyone else anything. There is no point where you simply stop getting shit on by life, and there will always be people you don't know who don't know what you've achieved; you haven't *earned* anything from them. You never just get to a point in life where it ceases to take shits on you. That's where common courtesy comes in. Everyone has their own shit to deal with, I'm not going to add to it because I can't be bothered to give them a little common respect. I know what it feels like to get some common courtesy when life is taking a dump on me. It's not necessary, no, but it can be greatly appreciated. Don't think I don't get what you are saying though. I think there are plenty of people out there who have an overinflated sense of entitlement, that think everyone around them should bend over backwards for them if they are having a bad day, etc. Those people should not be catered to. They are the type of people that just expect people to be kind and courteous, yet hold no intention of reciprocating such behavior. They are the ones that don't wave for thanks when I let them merge into my lane when I clearly do not need to. There are the people that do wave back though. Those are the people that give me reason to show *everyone* some level of respect, not just reserve it for people whom I know. Oh, and also, don't think I'm defending all the people in this thread. I'm sure some of them are entitled fucking pricks.
If I own a small business with 3 employees, would I also be required to have a "board of directors"? What good would this do me? I know the direction I want *my* company to move in, so why should I waste my resources forming this "board"? What about if I own a large private business? Why would *my* business require the input of people who don't own it? Again- I know the direction I want *my* company to move in, so what good does it do me to have <PERSON> from receiving on my board? Why do I even *need* a board? I have a feeling you're talking about *corporations*, though, which are a type of company. Corporations exist so that investors can, well, invest. The whole reason this type of company is around is so that stake can be sold for capital which can be used to grow the business(and thus, the stake). By removing this ability, you wouldn't need corporations in the first place. Further, what good does it do a corporation to have lowly employees on the board? What the heck could a random cashier(for example) possibly contribute to a multinational company by being on the board? They wouldn't understand the business, nor the business model, nor the goals the business has.
I rather someone cough into their hands than just in the air honestly. It grosses me out more when someone is trying to suppress a cough and then just coughs right in your breathing air. Just get it over with and cough in your hands. Though I do agree with you that coughing into your hands and then proceeding to touch other people or things that other people touch is gross. Use hand sanitizer.
That is pretty much the definition of horrible. If I told a child not to stand next to a tree because it might fall down and a child proceeds to stand next to a tree and it also falls over. I would still try and save the child. You'd have to be a special kind of evil to just go "well I told you so"
I don't know how much Pres. <PERSON> really wanted to take action. He had absolutely no responsibility to ask Congress for approval and it was well known then that they were going to say no. Congressional approval certainly didn't seem to be that important to him when he got involved in Libya. It's far more accurate to say he sought the approval he knowingly wouldn't get for something he didn't need - in other words, he didn't really want to take action. Of course I agree with the decision in '13 and last night's. Back in '13 there was a viable diplomatic option to a military strike and it made sense to try that first. That viable diplomatic option has since failed and it was time to act.
They ate an apple because a talking snake told them to. They didn't know enough to desire any rebellion from God from the action; they didn't know good from evil and thus they didn't understand sin, rebellion, disobedience, etc. <PERSON> and <PERSON> were incapable of any of the motives you describe. Now, if you don't care about motive and only action, fine. But no modern society shares that view and there are good reasons for that. We punish motives almost exclusively in the modern world and that's a good thing. I cannot imagine that a loving God would do less. And again, you're confusing choice with consequence. I don't choose to gain weight; I choose to eat food, which has the consequence of gaining weight. I would rather not gain the weight, as it happens. And, in fact, in our culture we do often short hand the situation by saying that my acceptance of the weight gain as a consequence means that I do choose to gain weight. But this is a short hand, and it requires that I understand the consequences of my actions. <PERSON> and <PERSON> cannot have understood the consequences of their action. They chose to eat the fruit. They did not choose to place themselves before God because they had no idea of what that concept was or meant. They had no idea that they would be forever separated from God because they had no idea of that consequence from eating the fruit. Therefore, the short hand of saying that they chose the consequence of their action (eating the fruit) doesn't work. They are missing the key component and therefore cannot be said to have chosen any fall from God. I am in the same position. I do not choose to disbelieve in God. I cannot choose to believe and accept <PERSON>. I can choose to listen to information and arguments, which I do so choose, obviously, or I wouldn't be here, and see if those arguments are convincing. But I have no power to control my beliefs. No one does. Therefore, I cannot be said to be choosing to reject God. Believe me, if there was a God and a heaven, I'd want to go there and would do what I had to (within limits) to get there. But because I honestly believe (not by choice, but by psychological forces I cannot control) that there is no god, no afterlife, I cannot be reasonably said to be accepting the consequences of my choice (which would have to be something like not going to church or having premarital sex because not believing in god isn't a choice.) If I cannot accept the consequences of my actions, then I cannot be said to have chosen them. So neither I nor any atheist choose to be separate from god, or to sin or to go to hell. We cannot be said to have made such a choice and I have to tell you, most of the atheists I know find the implication that we have made such a choice pretty insulting. Just for the record. &gt;Only for those who do not trust in the <PERSON> as their saviour. The parents of the man who in 3 weeks will be best man at my wedding trust <PERSON> as much as any one can. Yet they are the one's suffering most from my friend having realized that he doesn't believe in God. They are one's who fear daily that my friend will go to hell. They are one's who pray at night, begging a god who isn't there to show their son the light. They are the one's praying that my friend won't suffer for all eternity. I love them for loving my friend. But watching them suffer so much, watching them fear so much, is a crime that I'm glad I cannot lay at your god's feet, simply because he is imaginary.
Like most cases. If you really want to see a change then tell everyone, I mean **EVERYONE**, to stop accepting plea deals. The courts would grind to a halt and they would have to start releasing people on 6th amendment grounds. The courts would probably start telling the police to stop arresting people unless it is for something very serious like armed robbery or murder. All the minor little bullshit things like drug possession and drunk in public would get tossed rather quickly since the courts would be unable to handle all the cases. This would bring about some meaningful change but it would require people to band together. I don't see this ever happening.
File a police report. Take that report to the Securities and Insurance division of your state's Secretary of State. If he was selling investment vehicles without the proper licenses then it makes much of this a great deal easier. The state will run an investigation and put the kid in jail. How long depends heavily on how he did things and if he actually bought bitcoins or not. You will not get your money back. You *might* get *some* money back if the kid actually tried to invest. Your boss, if he knew that it was a Ponzi scheme and made money off of it, might also face charges for seeking new investors for the fraud.
There's two definitions of apocrypha in a Christian context: (1) Deuterocanonical books (2) Religious texts that 'didn't make it in' (1) are books in the *Old Testament* that aren't in the Hebrew Bible and/or the Masoretic text, and which Protestants generally reject, but which may be canonical for Orthodox, Catholic, and related groups. They are not generally called apocrypha by scholars but are called apocrypha by (some) Protestants. (2) is any religious text from the period that didn't wind up as one of the 27. It's a big, poorly-defined, contested umbrella term which may or may not be appropriate. Previously, <PERSON> definition of apocrypha, which required that the work be of *gleichwertig* to canonical books, was dominant. Gleichwertig is roughly "of same value". This proved to be problematic because defining the relative worth/value of gospels is... uhh... fraught. So, <PERSON>'s definition is on the outs. It's also complicated because you have 'Old Testament' apocrypha written by Christians, like the Ascension of Isaiah, which takes the events of 2 Kings 21 and makes them all about <PERSON>. There's also material where it's unclear if it's 'Christian' apocrypha or 'Jewish' apocrypha (which is itself a problematic distinction, depending on how you feel about <PERSON> and when the 'ways parted' between Judaism and Christianity). The introduction to "The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha" has a good overview of the problem. So, basically: anything vaguely Christian-y from 0-500 AD, roughly, that isn't part of the corpus of patristic writing nor part of the New Testament nor part of any Orthodox Bible nor part of any liturgy. Works are more likely to be called 'apocrypha' if they belong to a 'genre' represented in the Bible (apocalypses; gospels; epistles; acts). (But even that's not firm and fast: are the extra books in the Ethiopic Bible 'apocryphal'? Is including them in a collection of apocrypha insulting?)
It would probably be better to say that Roman Catholicism was the eventual outcome of Latin Christianity, rather than Latin was important because that RC church used it. That is to say, there was already a significant cultural and linguistic division between the two 'halves' of the Roman Empire, and Christianity in its western half operated primarily in Latin (though in fact at Rome it operated in Greek for a couple of centuries). <PERSON> produced a Latin translation designed to remedy the defects of earlier Latin translations, and was based on <PERSON>'s own considerable learning in Greek and Hebrew. Protestants, amidst an array of issues, were convinced in part by *<PERSON>'s* arguments that the texts in the original languages were superior and authoritative. <PERSON> himself had argued for this, but the prevailing usage of the Septuagint in his own time meant that at best the Hebrew OT was accepted as 'authoritative' alongside the Greek. Eastern Orthodox (as well as Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East and other branches) do not emerge from the stream of Latin Christianity and so have never had any reason to consider the Vulgate authoritative. "defer to the Bible" makes no sense in this regard, as RC teaching from the Council of Trent is that the Bible is as it is found in the Vulgate. The Vulgate very much is 'the Bible' as much as other translations are.
No, it suggests that even trans people aren't working outside of gender, it means nothing about possibilities. There are people who claim to be of no gender (I am uninterested in arguing if they "really" are without gender right now), but as gender is non-essential, and produced by humans/society/whatever, it can certainly be done away with (no I don't claim to know how). If you don't like that then pretend I said "it could make lives easier in a society where people refuse to think of sex and gender as separate or be accepting on non-normatively gendered people."
I have heard people genuinely advocate for lowering the burden of proof in sexual assault cases, on the grounds that "a woman wouldn't lie about that" or on the more measured grounds that "It's impossible to have a perfect system, and even though there may be some false accusations, they will be vastly outweighed by the number of rapists put behind bars who otherwise would be on the streets". I think it's a little disingenuous (or, perhaps just naïve) to ascribe malice to all people who take the "believe all women" slogan literally, when there is a sizeable (probably a minority but still significant) group of people who advocate for just that. Yes, of course there are people with ulterior motives using disingenuous arguments and deliberate misinterpretation to sow distrust and hostility against the women's movement as a whole (and on other liberation movements), and this is something that one should always be aware of when looking at the debate on women's issues, but I'm sure it's a mistake to attribute that malicious intent to all (or even the majority) of those who question the wisdom of "believe all women" as a slogan. Black lives matter is a poor analogy, I think you have to work really hard to somehow interpret that as saying "black lives matter more" or "only black lives matter" rather than, well, what it actually says: "black lives matter". Not more, not unequally, simply an affirmation of the fact that the live of a black person matters. "Believe all women" is a little different; you're making the case that it should be taken non-literally, and I don't think it's too hard to see how you might interpret "believe all women" to mean... well... "believe all women"
Ummm, if you genuinely prefer that <PERSON> be elected than <PERSON> (and that <PERSON> be elected over either of them), and your rational analysis indicates that your preference ordering can best be achieved by voting for <PERSON>, then why wouldn't you? By this, I mean, let's say that you prefer J(+10)&gt;C(5)&gt;T(1). If the probability of each one is J(0.001), C(.4999), T(.4999), which one will give you the *highest expected value* of each possible vote? Because you want to vote for the highest expected value. With those numbers, <PERSON> is the top candidate. However you do need to have a lot of confidence in your probability numbers... if somehow <PERSON> got to a 10% chance of winning (and there are some scenarios that aren't totally insane, such as throwing the election into the House), then suddenly it might make more sense to vote for him. You have to be sure to calculate *all* of the paths to victory in a situation like this, however.
If the possibility of a maximally great being were merely logical equivalent to its existence, then <PERSON>'s objection, probably the most influential objection, which grants the premise while denying the conclusion, would be incoherent. Perhaps what we should say here is that the premise about the possibility of a maximally great being is logically equivalent to the proposition that this being exists when it is conjoined with the premise that the possibility of a maximally great being entails its existence. But this is an instance of logical equivalency only in the sense which the premises of all deductive arguments are logically equivalent to their conclusions, so we're going a bit nuclear on logic if we want to deny our ability to make these kinds of inferences. Furthermore, to call the premise of the possibility of the maximally great being "question-begging" presumes it to be a mere premise, when many of the major formulations of the argument--for instance, <PERSON>'s, <PERSON>'s, and Kant's--argue for this proposition rather than merely asking it to be granted. If indeed this statement is logically equivalent to God's existence, then this would entail that God's existence would be proven by any successful argument for the proposition of his possibility, which is not really an objection to what <PERSON>, <PERSON>, or <PERSON> present as the argument.
I have a funny story that is kinda similar. A friend of mine wanted his girlfriend to go down on him, so he wanted to smell/taste extra tasty down there. So, in his brilliant mind he was like: "Well, I'll go take a shower and afterwards I'll put my junk in orange juice, that way it will be fruity" .. apparently he didn't consider that orange juice is VERY acid. When he told me that story, I burst into tears laughing, they way he described it, just hilarious! That being said, sorry for your pain. lol.
My reasoning was that, I very rarely see (if ever) websites that employ that kind of popups. I'd like to see a functionality where creation of a popup/new window is allowed ONLY IF it is allowed by the user explicitly (allow popups this time/allow always on this site). I am a programmer, so I kind of know what I'm talking about. I support that a creation of a new window should never be allowed, whatever the cause, without user consent.
&gt;Mathematical truths aren't arrived at via experiments which confirm or deny them; they are determined to be true via proofs. A proof is a mathematical experiment. You can tell by the way that you have to perform a series of steps to arrive at a result which is either confirmed or denied, corroborated, or dismissed.
&gt;The alien is at a great distance so the effect of even a slow speed has a great effect. No. The distance is irrelevant because there is no privileged reference frame. The alien would only undergo great time dilation if it was moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
I'm assuming you're in the US, are 18+ years old, and have graduated school. Theoretically your mother needs to give you 30 days to vacate. If she tries to forcibly evict you before then, you can call the police, but be aware that they may not want to intervene in a family fight so it's a good idea for you to move out ASAP. The rest isn't really a legal question. You should get a job, an apartment, and a life.
There's not much point to being worried, since you can't really do much at this point. If you get served with notice of a lawsuit, you'll need to respond, and you may want a lawyer depending on how much she's suing for. I can't tell you who was in the wrong, because I don't know whether your story or her story is accurate. If your father did shove a cart into her stomach, that was definitely wrong. If the police contact you about this incident, politely decline to talk to them and get a lawyer.
&gt;By analogy, if you have a friend who never locks their doors in a not-so-great area, and you tell them (before they've ever been robbed), "hey man, you should really lock your doors, you could get robbed." Locking doors isn't a positive or negative experience, it's rather neutral; contrary to getting completely wasted, which is wholly negative. How does that deflect blame from potential robbers onto the victim? Because that is not what happens, what happens is that when the guys who broke into your friends home get to court, they get to go free, and keep all his stuff, because your friend gave them permission to come in and take it by not locking his home, or not locking his home ENOUGH (with that small padlock, he was asking for it). That would be insane, yet it happens to women who are raped
&gt;Yes. We have a justice system, and the attempted murderer would to jail. That is their punishment. If the victim or their family wants compensation, they can sue for a monetary amount. You did not answer the question: Why is the victim's innocent life worth less to you than a kidney of a guilty murderer? Having your murder go to jail, seems like a poor comfort for DYING, when you could have been saved. &gt;Murderers/attempted murders have rights too. Sure, but why should they have more rights than their victims? The victim's right to LIFE clearly should trump the right of the murderer to a kidney. &gt;Forcibly taking someone's kidney as compensation for a crime they committed is not part of our justice system It's not a compensation. It's to save the life of someone you tried to kill.
Our current culture has decided that you can consent somewhere around 16/17/18, depending on the state. What rationale is used for that determination? Mostly studies about brain development and the ability to fully comprehend the consequences of your actions and ability to control impulses. That's why we have juvenile criminal courts as well.
&gt; I figure if I force him to hold onto it, I will not be able to get into legal trouble because it is not in my possession technically? Sorry, no. Him having it in his room doesn't mean that you can't be charged, or found guilty, for possession. It is certainly evidence in your favor. If there are illegal substances in your place, you run the risk of being charged.
Kissing someone without their consent is assault, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Doesn't mean a woman would necessarily report it and certainly doesn't mean the assaulter would see any jail time, but it does fit within the legal definition of sexual assault and if it happened at work it fits within the legal definition of sexual harassment.
Your parents, her parents, have custody of her and can raise her however they wish, legally. That includes taking her with them when they move to other countries. You disagreeing with them is not sufficient to remove her from their custody, which is the only way you'd be able to prevent her moving with them if they desired it.
I know it feels like a *potential* lose/lose, but that is an assumption that has never really been shown in the long term. Speaking *very* generally, there have always been great games to play. There have always been great games for the value. I've been a gamer since atari, and a pc gamer since my first "386 IBM clone with CGA monitor". Every few years there is a new crisis in the video game industry that will "ruin gaming if we don't act now!!!". You will have to forgive me if I've started rolling my eyes at that stuff at my age. * Is this an annoying trend? Yup. * are there *valid, non-evil* arguments for micro transactions? Yup. * is EA more cynical and exploitive than most? Yup. Here's what will happen (imo): EA will continue to piss off consumers, eventually irritating the non-enthusiast gamers (who aren't on r/gaming), because the company is oblivious. EA has only survived *because* of some of their biggest acquisitions. That money train will eventually run out. When it does, EA will change or die. None of that will ever affect the health of gaming. Eventually, enthusiast gamers will decide another company is the greedy devil that is ruining gaming, and the cycle will repeat. This will keep happening because of who the consumers are, and because studios *have* to figure out ways of making a profit. Charging the same price for a triple A game for 30yrs is not conducive to making money. Some revenue streams will succeed, with the blessing of the consumer, some will be vilified.
Maybe. There was a movie made a few years ago called "Land of Plenty", and it was about the US (though it was about post 9/11 US so it was meant to be tongue in cheek). In general I guess the US has always been referred to as the "Land of opportunity" worldwide, not the land of plenty. We'll leave the healthcare debate for another day, but I definitely see where you are coming from
&gt;That is not an accusation of a strawman; it is a disagreement on a specific point of contention. Great. You wouldn't summarise it as such then, I did. So what's been your point this whole time? If somebody said "that cloud looks like a lion", would you try to argue with them about it? By the way, is there just one single place where this debate happens? I've definitely seen it occurring on reddit, where neither party even defined free will at any stage of the discussion. Or is that not a *true* debate?
&gt;It did for me. What are you actually talking about though? Obviously it doesn't make sense to be afraid of the experience of being dead if one thinks there is no consciousness after death. There's nothing to fear because you won't be there. I doubt you're completely unafraid of all the possible ways you could experience death before the loss of consciousness though. If you got your foot stuck in some train tracks and saw an oncoming train bearing down on you, you're saying you'd just be all nonchalant about it? &gt;I'm sorry to hear you'll never stop being scared about something you can't avoid Are you saying it's intrinsically silly to fear anything that is inevitable? What if you're kidnapped and told you're going to be ritually sacrificed and you know you won't be rescued - you'd stop being afraid simply because it's inevitable? One can be accepting of their fate and still have fear of the actual pain in the experience to come, they're separate emotions.
&gt;A fact that he boasts about when he talks about influencing the <PERSON> in the past. So he bribed the <PERSON>. Why would you trust the person who TOOK a bribe over the person who paid the bribe? &gt;there are trillion dollar corporations out there no there aren't. Apple is, by market cap, the largest company in the world. it's worth about half a trillion. &gt;Basic human nature has people taking care of their own before others, and in lieu of other evidence, it's wisest to assume that's what he would do. that is true. So who do you think <PERSON> considers "his own"? A bunch of billionaires that he's never met? I doubt that. &gt; I'd be surprised if he let his brand and businesses be squashed by bigger dogs if push came to shove. how, exactly, would this happen? Power is not magic. Please explain by what concrete mechanism this would work.
&gt;It would be cheaper for the consumer not for the company making the product. not when you take into account the extra cost of making parts like that it wouldn't. &gt;That's one of the reasons why it's not done yet. It's not done because it ISN'T cheaper. if it were, then you could make a fortune making iphones that were cheaper than iphones. &gt;That seems kind of like a strawman. No, it's basic logic. &gt;All I meant by local production was that instead of manufacturing goods in places where wages are lower (but environmental transportation costs would be higher), this would incentivize to keep manufacturing within the same country where transportation costs wouldn't be as great. I know what you said, repeating yourself isn't an argument. I've explained how that doesn't help, repeatedly. &gt; If you have some information that would change my view then just provide it - why does every bit of information have to come with some snide remark? I'm done here. You clearly don't understand the nature of this subreddit. I did. Your response has been to say "nu uh" or repeat yourself.
Even though I am not remotely religious, I love defending religion in comment threads. People get so set off about it. I can see in my mind the way they furiously banged away at their keyboard, googled shit, and revised their response while I read it. The best part is that the things I write about can't actually be argued because it is all open ended, vague, and opinion. It's pseudo philosophy that can't be right or wrong, but they still try.
Because I have empathy and seeing or hearing about other people being hurt hurts me as well? I don't like to be hurt, so I want to minimize other people hurting. Unless you are a psychopath, the same should be true of you. There is no objectivity in my worldview, and no need for it either. I do not care for your unsubstantiated claim that your deity is the definition of good because I care more about actions and results than silly things like philosophy. Your deity's actions make him look worse than <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and <PERSON> combined, and the result of his choices is infinite torture for most of humanity. And if that does not trigger revulsion in you, then either you have been severely damaged by your brainwashing (likely) or you were born a psychopath. And that's not ad-hominem. That's just a fact. People *help* others, and enjoy doing it! Altruism is an integral part of the human psyche, and we act upon it more often than your pessimistic worldview would have you believe. If you look for them, you can find thousands of stories of people sticking their necks out for others, even in the gravest of situations. From priests who offered to be executed in place of another in Auschwitz, to people who jump into traffic to knock someone out of the way, to the endless tales of soldiers jumping on grenades or otherwise sacrificing themselves for their squadrons, empathy overcomes even the survival instinct! The massive success of charities like the Make a Wish Foundation, the Red Cross, and UNICEF proves pretty conclusively that millions of people around the world are willing to throw their resources behind efforts to improve the human condition, with little to no expectation of personal gain! Right now, at this moment, it has been over 70 years since any significant portion of the world has been embroiled in war, and some quick napkin - back math (China, most of India, US, Europe) shows that the majority of people alive today have never lived in a war zone. That simply would not happen if, as you claim, all humans were irredeemable save through the salvation of Mass Murdering Sadomasochistic Sky-Rapist. If people were not inclined to be basically good to each other most of the time, the concept of civilization itself would be dead in the water because nobody would ever be able to work together long enough and make the personal sacrifices necessary to produce one. So. Your religion claims that people are evil at heart. That we do not deserve salvation, and that it is only by God's 'grace' that some of us are elected to be saved from infinite torture. Not only does the existence of civilization indicate that you are wrong about this, but the claim that infinite torture is a thing your deity does makes him deserve to be executed for the protection of good people everywhere. Where do I get deicide from? Simple math. Infinite torture means that our universe contains infinite disutility. If my goal is to reduce disutility wherever possible and practical, the best way to do that is to remove the source of infinite disutility. And, here's the thing: for human psychopaths, I'd just say we should imprison them. Once they can no longer hurt anyone, there is no point in ending their lives, and indeed that imprisoning them for life serves the purpose of disincentivizing further depravities on the part of other psychopaths better than killing them would. After all, there's data showing that the death penalty does not disincentivize crime. But...we can't do that with God, can we? He can't be contained such that he can no longer harm humanity by his very existence. And therefore, if I seek to decrease the suffering of the universe, I must kill God. If that turns out to not be possible, I must obliterate the universe, taking God with me. Null utility is better than negative infinity. Think for a moment. Forget the verses memorized by rote, forget the arguments you've constructed, safe in the iron tower of your philosophy, and think. Why do you believe the things you believe? What are your reasons to think that a deity who would torture most of the people you have ever met forever is something to be worshipped rather than loathed? Read [this](http://unsongbook.com/interlude-י-the-broadcast/). Why is that something to be worshipped rather than reviled? Why do you not believe in the basic dignity of all human beings? Why do you reject all of philosophy from the enlightenment forward and cling to a concept that has been woefully out of style for almost five hundred years? Why do you believe that humanity deserves to suffer? Why do you ignore the hard-wired impulses of your brain, coded by trial and error over millions of years, made specifically to maximize our ability to reproduce and flourish in a world that cares not for our existence? It's clearly been working for us so far.
I think, for one, you're overthinking this a lot. Second, you can still be an intelligent human being and be nice to other people. It just takes a bit of figuring out where the balance is. For example, you don't have to correct people on their grammar every other sentence, it's an annoying habit that no one appreciates. On the other hand, you should feel free to speak out if someone says something that is incorrect or offensive to you personally or in general like a racial slur/stereotyping/etc.
This makes a lot of sense. I agree that it is an education issue, but I also think it's an experience issue. Learning about the dynamics of relationships would be difficult to learn through external influences, such as books, videos, instruction, etc. Rather, the actual experience from relationships is largely emotional and probably more resounding.
Have you tried pub trivia? It can be easier to get people to come to that because it has sort of an "event" aspect to it, but it's (usually) actually really fun and there's plenty of time to talk. It can also be a good way to meet new people, if that's what you're looking for.
You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and like you already have good ideas. Go to local events, start new hobbies, try meetup (if that's still a thing) to go on some group hikes or something. You sound pretty cool, so I bet you'll find some like-minded people eventually.
You said it perfectly. I think OP underestimates the ability of humans to walk and chew gum at the same time. I came here to say that both issues need to be addressed, but you took the words right out of my mouth. I will punish you by using the phrase "you took the words right out of my mouth, thus guaranteeing that you will get that <PERSON> song stuck in your head all day.
Some people are just not as funny as they think they are. Those annoying island squatters do have a great flavor of humor, but that doesn't mean that everybody has mastered it. What you describe brings me back to a wedding with a comedian who cracked one "mother-in-law" joke after the other. For 20 minutes he didn't realize that the place of the mother-in-law was empty except for a black ribbon.
First off, I agree with you in part - I do think we can do a lot to be more accessible. But I think you swing too far the other way, and I'd like to play half-devil's-advocate to some of your points. &gt; A college education (or at the very least, the Internet and plenty of time on one's hands) seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical SJW. Well, in principle, why shouldn't it? If you want to discuss the details of a subject, it isn't unreasonable to be expected to be familiar with its basic terminology. It's like saying "why can't I discuss physics without knowing what momentum is?" &gt; but how is someone who doesn't have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it's spoken by a women's studies textbook? See above - it does not seem unreasonable to ask someone to be familiar with the terminology if they want to argue a position. &gt; It can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid. How is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate? I don't think it is. But can't that be separate? You can have (to use the analogy of hard sciences again) rigorous scientific journals as well as a "pop-sci" version for the layman. &gt; I don't want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of SJWs enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments. Well, I can't speak for everyone, but that's a label I get tarred with on a fairly regular basis and that's not why I do what I do. I do what I do because I've seen a whole lot of people - myself included - get hurt very badly in the name of things that aren't even true. I have a strong voice and good arguments, and I want to represent us well. &gt; In the face of ignorance, SJWs tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue. The attitude is, "Oh, you're ignorant? Let me make you feel more ignorant by insulting you and using words you don't understand." Insofar as that's true I'll agree it's idiotic.
The utility argument here would be straightforward - if they aren't willing concede that the existence of a god needs to be supported, a debate isn't possible. &gt;Yeah, that's what I'm running into now. They're aware it's a faith thing. They're currently fine with that. This is exactly what I'm trying to disabuse them of. Well, I wish you the best of luck with that. I've given it a shot a time or two myself, usually without much success or even any headway. It's rather trite to say you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason them self into, but it's also largely true. For those that value faith as a core value and consequently accept theism, logic and reason will have little effect in persuading them to change their stance. For many theists, their belief in god is intimately tied up in their sense of self and how they view the world. Assailing that belief is tantamount to attacking _them_ as a person. The best I can offer is that you use emotional appeals and arguments tied up with aesthetics. You can point out the consequences of such worldviews and the potential they have for abuse due to a lack of empirical referent and you can even resort to ridicule. Sometimes such things work. But you have to admit, such tactics can be distasteful and offensive to those you use them on. Not always a good idea to try such things with friends if you wish to keep them. I would hesitate to say you shouldn't try, because there is certainly something to be gained in the experience. Just tread lightly and understand that success isn't determined by changing their mind. Success comes from expanding the understanding of each others' positions.
&gt; And finally, it's just the fucking decent thing to do. So caveat, I don't agree with this view, but the above has been the only argument I can think of. And when arguing it people just say 'who cares' or 'it's a business not a charity' etc I agree with the happier employees get more work done but that seems to apply to jobs where using your brain is required. What about assembly line work. Why pay them to sit on a beach when there are plenty of other people out there without jobs who would take the job. I guess I'm looking less for a 'why should an individual mandate it' and more for 'why should the government mandate it.' As countries in Europe have mandated leave but we in the US dont, and why should we? Why force employers to pay their employees to sit on a beach when there is an employee who might work for no vacation days?
I think there are more women out there who can take and throw a punch than you think there are. There are also more men out there who cannot take or throw a punch than you think there are. Toughness isn't all about strength and you'd be surprised of who could be capable of what. So I think the social rule should be 'pick on someone your own size' rather than 'don't hit girls'. Although more often it's going to be that women are the ones who are 'not your size' rather than the men. But really, it depends on what you mean by 'equal'. If you mean not equal physically, then of course men and women are not equal because they are not the same. If you mean equal as human beings then yes, men and women are exactly equal. Women are just as good computer programmers (and in fact the first computer programmer was a women) as men are parents. If you mean equal socially, then men and women are not equal. Men have an easier time economically and women have an easier time socially. Men dominate some of the most lucrative and highest paying fields while women dominate in family and dating life. Luckily, society is trending toward more equality for everyone in all those areas of life, but right now it's still pretty unbalanced. It may never fully become balanced and that's OK, but a bit more would be nice.
[This](http://i.imgur.com/q5t2ylE.jpg) is <PERSON>. My fiance accidentally called him "<PERSON>" once, so that's a popular nickname of his now. We got him when I was pregnant with our daughter because we wanted a kitten so bad. He was kind of a shit when he hit maturity because we didn't get him neutered right away and he peed on everything, but when we got him snipped he stopped. He's a great cat. He's also very good with the baby and never scratches her. He loves other animals and likes to knock over cups of water. Every other cat I've had I've gotten from a shelter or a previous owner, so <PERSON> is the first cat I've had since a little kitten. It's nice to have that kind of bond with a pet. I'll probably get his little cat face tattooed on me sometime.
I've never even liked making friends with other girls. I have a hand full of girl friends, but 90% of my friends are male. Of that number about 75% of them are either dating someone else, married, or are friends with my boyfriend and that's how we met. It's literally impossible that they all talk to me just hoping I'll throw out some pussy for them. I could name one person I know of that feels romantically towards me, but I've told him it would never happen and he has accepted that. Hell, my boyfriend knows my friend is in love with me. They're still friends. You're just a person who's incapable of being friends with women because you can't help but want to fuck them all, apparently, so you project your issues onto every other man as if you know every single person on the planet. Lmao, so I say good day sir. I will return to having game night with all my guy friends that I trust implicitly.
I don't have expensive earrings so that's the nearest equivalent I had. I objected to the assumption that the wives should put up and shut up because their husbands are paying for everything. I wouldn't give a toss if my SO quit work and I paid for everything, I'd still get dressed in another room so I didn't disturb him. I really pity your girlfriend.
How is it irrelevant? Having a child adopted in your name without your consent isn't a logical or reasonable consequence of being married so it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Hypotheticals are useful if they're analgous, your situation is more like a chick stealing sperm out of a used condom and using a turkey baster. My feelings on *that* are that it's fucked up and if you can prove it, she should be convicted of fraud, lose all parental rights but still have a financial obligation.
^(Disclaimer: I may be mildly right wing, but I am not a Republican.) ^(I should note that my family and I are legal immigrants.) A country without borders is not a country. Allowing even one person to either take advantage of your country proves that the country is weak and doesn't take citizenship seriously. If anyone can come into the country and gain all the benefits into the country as a citizen without actually being a citizen, then it defeats the purpose and demeans being a citizen. Including those trying to be citizens through such a process in effort of becoming one. And it is obvious that illegal immigrants will try to vote(there is plenty of evidence for this); how much this occurs, is up to debate. So being able to vote being the only determining factor of citizenship is rendered useless. It does affect politics, and it does affect people. [The cost of illegal immigration is NOT insignificant](http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers) As for jobs that are unwanted. A minor analogy for employment can be placed under tip-culture. Because employers can pay employees less for assumptions of tipping they can hire for less. Their hiring for less doesn't benefit consumers or the economy. You still have to tip and turn a fairly priced meal(5-10 dollars) into something easily (15-20 dollars). So you pay more, you get less, the waiter gets paid less, the employer pays less. If you pay employees LESS it doesn't take away from the fact that SOMEONE has to do the job, it takes away from EVERYONE else. If you give people a reason to pay less; they WILL, and it screws over everyone. There's no job that's unwanted, lest there be a job available for someone to pay. It doesn't matter that illegal immigrants take jobs, it matters that in a free-market capitalistic system that practice of giving illegal immigrants are not within the realms of legality or ethical practice. Those ILLEGAL jobs are untaxed and is NOT supposed to be available as a job for citizens to begin with. Its zero sum. But they can and will take legal jobs if they are available(which sometimes they are), and thus "they tek are jerbs" actually becomes reality. Nobody is SUPPOSED to live on welfare alone. They aren't supposed to have welfare to begin with. People who are homeless LIVE with or without welfare. People can survive with little to nothing. Welfare are for those that NEED it as EMERGENCY. Not for those that need constant maintenance and never climb out and thus gain dependency and lack of motivation. Its very apparent the only reason people in politics care so much about illegal immigration is voting. The Democrat party has long been supportive of accepting immigrants(legal or otherwise) so that they can give them amnesty and gain more votes(in the millions). A complete lack of assimilation is a failure, and incentive in this regard is borderline cheating. Might as well be as bad as the Republican party hypothetically importing right wing immigrants, bribing them, and allowing them receive free citizenship for no reason so that they could vote for them. You WOULD call out the Republican party for pulling some shit like that, and you would call them unethical for doing so. I would. **Its obvious that not all illegal immigrants commit violent crimes.** When you have sanctuary cities that protect illegal immigration and it directly/indirectly supports those that practice trafficking sex slaves, narcotics, criminals, etc. It would easily be motive to take advantage of by those that WOULD commit violent crimes. And for the record the very nature of the word illegal immigrant implies that they are indeed criminals and should be treated as such. Its innocent until proven guilty, but they are ALREADY guilty of trespassing. We give people the benefit of the doubt, but if you START off as crime, it isn't necessarily a good starting point. Its noted that those that already commit crime are likely to continue to commit crime; whether that has any relevance in significance is up to debate. The current migrant problems of Western Europe are a stark example of what happens if you don't take immigration seriously. You can ask anyone in any major city that experiences significant migrants. And those are from people who are INVITED into the country. What of those that aren't allowed? Add in the fact that its obvious that some immigrants will send money back to the home country as a net loss creating a drain on the economy in addition to welfare. Add in the fact that even if a minority the illegal immigrants commit proportionally more crimes and atrocities. The minority is significant enough. One rape is one rape too many. It only takes one to ruin it for the rest of us. It's not exaggerated. It matters. Countries need borders. Strong countries need strong borders.
I did see your original post. Like I said, I am not a southern black. I would not want to be proud of a symbol that people used to scare my father and murder him. At the same time, as I am not a southern black, I would also be wary of flying a flag that was used to enslave my ancestors. (The USA flag)
Yes and no, the bones that break are the fourth or fifth metacarpal, which attach to the smaller two fingers. The first two metacarpals are much stronger, so a punch that lands correctly, IE with the two large knuckles, won't cause an injury at most force levels, when you start talking about the 5kN punches a pro heavyweight boxer can throw that may change. It actually does sortof make sense, firstly keep in mind that our ancestors had more robust skeletons than we do, they might have held up better. Secondly the fourth and fifth metacarpal both impact on another bone whose name escapes me, if your metacarpals could hold up under the stress of impacting with the small fingers you'd fracture that bone instead, directing all the force along the second and third metacarpal via the larger two knuckles makes more sense than reinforcing the weaker half of the hand and coming up short.
Testing the driver is 100% ok, the passenger is more murky. If he was assisting or contributing to the operation of the truck in some way, then they can test him. If he was just a passenger along for the ride, then he would have a case. If the driver was having the passanger do sumthing, like watch the mirror for him then it can be ok to test both. A lot of companies are heavy with the test hammer, since they know so few people actually know the laws. Or also often the case, they are heavy with the test hammer because they don't actually know the laws that well. Worth noting in this case, the laws vary from state to state, your scenario could be legal in one state and then not legal in another. Under the federal rules (if they are diving under dot testing) then you have yet another set of rules. I don't think the DOT rules let you test the passanger.
We could have some designated areas for high rise, but we do need to preserve much of Dublin's height restrictions. Buildings of the 1960s such as Liberty Hall, O'Connell Bridge House and Hawkins House all look out of place. As I have said in another post in this thread, what Dublin needs is better regional development, to take the pressure off Dublin and free up housing for those that really do want to live there.
&gt; Oxford and Cambridge sitting MPs in Parliament until 1950 The University of Dublin (Trinity College) and the National University of Ireland elect senators to the upper house of the Irish parliament to this day. Graduates get two votes, one for the lower house for their geographical constituency and one for the upper house for their university.
&gt;That is a valid criticism and you don't seem to understand that. I'm trying to have a conversation about it, and perhaps even debate it, but you keep throwing up totally random objections to what I'm saying like "what if <PERSON> wasn't the son of God?" or "what if sin isn't a thing?". They are nothing to do about the criticism in the OP, they are separate lines of criticism. &gt;The only way you can reason that it is not is by believing unsubstantiated claims. And that is why you are wrong. The objection in the OP is of this form: "*Given Christianity is true, and the events of the crucifixion happened as described*, then I would still object to Christianity, as they bible says that <PERSON> went through a tremendous sacrifice, but the account merely has him 'giving up his weekend'. Christian doctrine doesn't consistently follow from what you say happened". That is, it's an attack on the constistency of Christianity. Whether the claims of Christianity are true and substantiated **is not a relevant factor** to the objection discussed in the OP. I agree if we were to reach a point where you accepted that Christianity was consistent, you would still have to be convinced it was true and substantiated apart from that - it's an important topic of conversation, but it's one not relevant to the OP. Regardless of whether the claims of Christianity are true or not, if they are not internally consistent *then that doesn't matter*, the doctrines of Christianity are false **regardless**. So when we are talking consistency and you start talking about foundations, that is a subject change.
&gt;if you've ever read any given academic article or commentary, you'll notice that usually the significant amount of the content is devoted to the reasoning for a given idea or interpretation. This is where the coherence of their position derives. There are any number of ways to invent a coherent position on Biblical matters. That's not what I have been asking about. &gt;This is addition to the fact that I am perfectly justified in deferring to designated authorities on the matter. My question is not "who should we listen to", it's "how does one determine". I'm quite happy to let you defer to whoever you like. It's utterly beside the point. &gt;I find it quite intuitively reasonable and I haven't seen any reasons to abandon this intuition yet Just because you find something intuitively reasonable doesn't mean it actually is reasonable nor does it mean that anyone else will agree with you that it's reasonable. If you want to be sure or you want to convince people then you actually need to "show your work". &gt;What circularity? Using the Bible as a source for historical information and then using historical information to inform you about characters from the Bible. &gt;From, as in the Bible says so and so, to, as in this is what was historically the case. Perhaps 'rephrase' was the wrong word. Nevermind, I'm sure we'll come back to it from another direction. &gt;Oh I'm sure a text as diversely written as the Bible will include particular contradictory meanings--I mean, it's patently there between the OT and NT. But this doesn't mean that consistency between interpretations is impossible, or that the writers of the Bible weren't trying to achieve consistency, or that we should abandon attempts to interpret certain passages that square well with other passages if indeed we have warrant to accept that. If there are contradictory meanings in the Bible then why should people strive for coherent interpretations? What do you believe about god's relationship with the Bible? How do you know which interpretation is the one the god means us to employ? &gt;Because I have sources to back up my claim, which I listed elsewhere in this thread. That's only a way to know an expert agrees with you. How did the expert come to his conclusion?
I dont even think a 30 minute test would be necessary. Assuming the person already has a valid driver's license in their country, they would only need a quick crash course on the basic laws and nuances of driving in that country (which I agree would be a good thing). This is something that could be done online relatively inexpensively. Read through the important rules, take a quick test, and print off a "certificate" right then and there, free of charge. THis would be required to rent a car, or to show if a cop pulls you over. Could people cheat? Probably, but the point is to make it as painless/easy as possible that cheating is completely unneccessary. Also, anyone travelling to NZ or anywhere else as a tourist would know whether they're planning on driving and do this a couple of weeks before travelling. Let's say the certificate has an expiration date, like valid 90 days after the print off date, to make sure the rules/differences remain fresh in that person's mind. EDIT: I think this would be a good thing. I've driven in foreign countries, and not knowing the nuances and differences in rules of the road can be stressful and dangerous (for example, Right turn on red after stop is standard someplaces but illegal in others), having something like this would be helpful, i think.
I and several of my friends coasted through high school as honor roll students with zero effort. I never got on top of my procrastinating, and had to drop out. Pretty hilarious showing up to write a final and you didnt attend any classes. No matter how smart you are, you need to absorb the material. Even world class geniuses have to actually go through the lectures and absorb the material. I don't have a solution for you, but be ready to start out in manual labor jobs for shitty pay (which you may have to do anyway, depending on your degree) if you don't buckle down. I'm not upset that I dropped out, I think I ended up experiencing a lot of personal growth as a result of my subsequent experiences. I'm not unhappy now either, at 32, I drive a brand new jaguar, and live in a pretty nice house. It's not the end of the world if you don't succeed at college. But it does correlate with a higher standard of living, and it's easier to get a lot of jobs because the piece of paper proves that you were at least able to buckle down for 40-60 hours a week and absorb information and regurgitate. Years ago I would have suggested having someone in your life that keeps you on point, but that won't train you to change permanently. If theres one thing i've learned it's that change comes from within, you have to make a concrete decision to change your attitude and behavior, you could try sticking to a schedule. Good Luck bud, and whatever happens, stay positive because life is short! Even the worst mistakes can be bounced back from.
Well, you have [my reply](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/23abmv/to_atheists_how_would_the_world_be_different_if/cgv0nud). I'll add a few more: * Apologetics as a field would be non-existent. Apologetics is something you only need when your claims fail to substantiate. * There wouldn't be such a variety of religions and denominations * Religion wouldn't need to spread by force * The Problem of Evil wouldn't be a problem, one way or another.
&gt; Should be according to whom? According to you perhaps. The wonderful things about opinions is we are all able to have them :) Mine differs from your in this case. Perhaps I said too much that allowed you to skip over the question. Why is faith better than knowledge? &gt; If you really believe failsafes were written in thousands of years ago Christianity tells us that we're sinful creatures that deserve hell if not for the grace of god. Those that don't believe are banished to eternal torment and torture. If we accept <PERSON>, we're rewarded in heaven. These are failsafes. They have people in fear of the consequences of not believing.
So you admit that you are constantly gaining experience, yet say that the relationship is a waste of time? Relationships are about learning and expressing your love. If you are thinking of relationships as some sort of give and take contract, then you are doomed for failure. If you havent read it yet, check out that [Marriage Isn't For You](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-adam-smith/marriage-isnt-for-you_b_4209837.html) article. It will shed a new light on what relationships are all about. Selfishness demands, "What's in it for me?" while <PERSON> asks, "What can I give?"
I'm going to go against the grain and say that there are good non-religious reasons to at least avoid casual sex. **Value and motivation** This is from the perspective of a guy. If a woman is known to "put out" quickly, then guys will try to use her for sex. The more a woman is known for sex, the more she will be pursued by guys seeking a quick lay. Sex is a huge motivator in high school and college, and nobody likes to be used. **Attachment and the long term** Promiscuity makes me wonder if the person can handle a long term relationship. Having many short and shallow relationships emphasizes the sexuality, and not the emotional connection. You need both if you want to be in a successful long term relationship. **Consequences** I am married, so this no longer applies. I always asked myself the question "Is this a person I could imagine having a child with?". While I still had my share of partners, this kept me from sleeping with someone who was attractive, but otherwise not a person I'd want to be around. There is also the worry about STDs, but that can be handled with a doctor appointment. Luckily (or not?) for men, many STDs are obvious and visible. A lot of religious tradition arose because it served a practical purpose. Waiting for marriage is a good way to avoid disease, prevent rape (for those who actually adhere to the religion), and prevent unwanted pregnancy. Today we prosecute rapists, have great birth control, and have ways to detect and treat many STDs. Perhaps the notion of one partner only after marriage is outdated, but the thought behind it may still have value.